We carried out a review of the data available to us about Rock House Residential Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Rock House Residential Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The provider had a process in place to enable relatives to visit their family members in a safe way and in line with government guidance. Visitors were asked to show a negative test prior to entry to the home.
Professional visitors were required to show a negative lateral flow test and evidence of COVID-19 vaccination.
Infection prevention control (IPC) signs reminded everyone at the point of entry and throughout the home about procedures for infection control.
The home was accessing regular testing, which had assisted them in identifying an outbreak of COVID-19.
Hand sanitising stations were readily accessible throughout the home and staff used these frequently.
Staff were applying and disposing of personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately and had received training in IPC and hand washing.
The home was visibly clean and well presented.
Rock House Residential Home is a care home that provides accommodation and personal care to people aged 65 and over. The service can support up to 57 people. At the time of the inspection 53 people were using the service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The service was person centred and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited safely. There was a procedure in place to ensure any safeguarding concerns were reported and addressed appropriately. Risks were properly assessed, and safeguards put in place to mitigate any risks which were identified. The team used lessons learned to develop and improve the service. People received care in an environment that was safe, clean and tidy.
People’s care plans were up to date and accurately detailed the care and support people needed and preferred. People received care from staff who were well trained to meet their needs and the service was homely and welcoming.
People received care and support which was tailored to their needs, delivered by staff who treated them with respect. Staff were caring, and people and relatives complimented the service and said they would recommend it to others.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People’s dietary and healthcare needs were met. There was a complaints procedure available which enabled people to raise any concerns or complaints about the care or support they received.
The registered manager was well thought of and there was effective management oversight and checks of the quality and safety of the service. People’s feedback was regularly sought, so they could contribute to the way the service was run.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection:
The service was last inspected in June 2017 (report published August 2017). At that time the rating for the service was ‘good’.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People using the service continued to receive safe care. Robust staff recruitment procedures were followed. Staffing levels met people's needs. People were protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely.
People using the service continued to receive effective care and have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People received care from staff that had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs. Staff engaged well with people. Staff and people knew each other well. Staff spoke with people in a way that was respectful. Staff delivered care in such a way that protected people's privacy, dignity and individual choices were respected.
Staff referred people to health care services for specialist health care advice. Health care professionals we spoke with were confident that people's changing care needs were reported promptly and staff acted on professional guidance to help improve people's health.
People were supported with their nutritional needs and access to activities and individual interests. People also knew how to complain and were encouraged to share their views and opinions about the service they received. There were formal opportunities for people and relatives to feedback any concerns through surveys.
There were processes to monitor the quality of the service provided. There were other checks which ensured staff worked in line with the organisation's policies and procedures. Environmental checks were completed and staff knew the correct procedures to take in an emergency.
Rock House Residential Home provides residential care for up to 57 older people, including those living with dementia. People are accommodated on the ground floor and the first floor. There is a lift to the first floor bedrooms. There are three communal lounges and a large dining area. The home is located in the village of Tickhill near Doncaster.
This inspection took place on 22 October 2014 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of two inspectors. We last inspected the service in November 2013 and found they were meeting the Regulations we looked at.
The home had a registered manager who had been registered since 2007. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law, as does the provider.
From our observations we saw that staff took the time to listen to people and try to understand their needs and wants. For example, one person told the staff they had lost their glasses. One carer said, “I know exactly where they will be.” The carer went off and returned with the glasses, the carer told us, “They (the person) always likes to put them in their dressing gown pocket and that’s where I found them.”
Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable regarding safeguarding procedures and were able to explain these should an allegation of abuse be made.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) sets out what must be done to make sure that the human rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected, including balancing autonomy and protection in relation to consent or refusal of care or treatment. The staff we spoke with during our inspection understood the importance of the Mental Capacity Act in protecting people and the importance of involving people in making decisions. The registered manager also demonstrated a good awareness of their role in protecting people’s rights and recording decisions made in their best interest. A health care professional we spoke with told us, “Without a doubt the staff understand the importance of the MCA.”
We found there were enough skilled and experienced staff. The registered manager explained people’s dependency was assessed and staffing levels reviewed based on people’s assessed needs and risks. Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work.
Suitable arrangements were in place and people were provided with a choice of healthy food and drink ensuring their nutritional needs were met. People told us that they enjoyed the food and there was always an alternative if they didn’t like what was on the menu. One person said, “The food here is excellent we have really good cooks. There is always something that I like on the menu.”
People’s physical health was monitored as required. This included the monitoring of people’s health conditions and symptoms so appropriate referrals to health professionals could be made. A health care professional we spoke with during our inspection told us, “The staff are very good, well organised and always very knowledgeable on people’s problems and needs.” Another professional we spoke with said, “The service is run for the residents and not the staff, it is a high standard of care provided.”
People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care needs. The staff we spoke with were thoughtful about people’s feelings and wellbeing. Staff gave good examples of how they were respectful and maintained people’s dignity. For example, Staff spoke quietly when asking people if they wanted to use the bathroom.
People we spoke with told us staff were excellent. One person said, “The staff go the extra mile they really genuinely care and are excellent.” Another person said, “I had a bad experience at my last home and was very worried, but staff made me feel at home, safe and welcome.”
A wide range of activities were provided. We saw people were involved and consulted about all aspects of the activities, where they were able including suggestions for activities.
The manager told us they had received no complaints in the last twelve months. However some minor issues had been documented in the communication book. How these had been resolved were also recorded in the communication book. The registered manager acknowledged these should have been recorded in line with the complaints policy
There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. We saw copies of reports produced by the registered manager. We also saw quality monitoring questionnaires which had been returned completed. The comments written were very positive. For example, “It is reassuring to know my mum is cared for at such a high standard that is given at Rock House” and “All staff are amazing.”
Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. People who lived at the home spoke positively about Rock House. One person who used the service told us, "I like it here, the staff are kind and helpful.' Another person told us, "It's smashing and the food is nice too."
People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.
People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began to work at Rock House.
There was an effective complaints system available. We saw the complaints procedure was displayed in communal areas of the building.
People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. There was evidence that people had access to health care services, such as district nurses, doctors, community psychiatric nurses, chiropodists, opticians, continence advisors and tissue viability nurses.
One visiting healthcare professional said that in their opinion "The manager and deputy make a fantastic team" and there was "A really good, consistent team and they care about people".
People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard. There were enough skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. All staff spoke very positively about the support they received from the manager.
The provider had systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. People who use the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and they were acted upon.
At the last site visit people told us they were involved in their care, were given choices and were treated with dignity and respect.
One person told us, 'The staff are very kind and look after me very well'.
At our last visit a relative told us, 'The staff are lovely they look after people very well, I am very happy with the care my relative receives'.