Archived: Roseworth Lodge Care Home

This was the service's annual scheduled inspection. During our visit the inspection team spoke with six people who used the service, four relatives, and seven staff, including the home's manager. We also spoke with a visiting health care professional. The inspection team focused on the outcome areas and regulations relating to consent, care & welfare, medication, supporting workers and assessing and monitoring quality.

The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

Roseworth Lodge used the Four Seasons corporate assessment and care planning documentation. This included assessment and risk assessment tools to help staff identify the risk areas that were relevant to each individual and plan their care accordingly. For example, risk of falls, skin integrity, nutrition and manual handling. The records we looked at had been reviewed to keep them up to date and included information on managing identified risks.

We found that improvements were needed to the way the service managed and administered medication. A compliance action has been set for this and the provider must tell us how they plan to improve.

Is the service effective?

Roseworth Lodge had in place arrangements to assess and plan people's care and support needs. The home used the Four Seasons corporate assessment and care planning documentation. This provided information about the care each person needed and their wishes and preferences. The records we looked at had been reviewed regularly, but changes recorded in monthly evaluations hadn't always been reflected in people's care plans.

People's care records included information relating to their capacity and consent needs. However, the records we looked at did not demonstrate that the legislation was fully understood and being applied consistently by staff. A compliance action has been set for this and the provider must tell us how they plan to improve.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. At the time of our visit one person at the service was subject to a DoLS authorisation. The manager was aware of recent case law and the potential impact of this judgement on the people living at the service. They had identified the people living at the home who may be affected by the new case law and were working with the local authority to ensure that these people's legal rights were protected.

People who used the service told us that they were happy with their care and support. Comments made to us included 'I like it here, this is my home' and 'I am happy and safe in here.' A visiting healthcare professional told us that they did not have any concerns and described the staff they had worked with as 'Helpful and pleasant.'

Staff told us that their local management were approachable and that they could access support when they needed it. However, we found that staff had not been receiving regular formal supervision due to management changes at the service. Staff had access to training and regular updates, although this was heavily focused around e-learning and staff sometimes completed multiple courses in one day.

Is the service caring?

We saw that staff took the time to be attentive and interact with individuals in a positive and caring way. People felt that staff treated them well. For example, comments made to us by people who used the service and their relatives included 'Staff are all good, they always speak in a kindly manner', 'Staff are lovely' and 'The staff are beautiful, they always know who you are, and everyone is kind and nice to me.'

Staff we spoke to knew people well and were able to describe peoples care needs and how they met these. The care records we looked at contained a comprehensive assessment and care planning documentation system. The records contained assessments, risk assessments and care plans, identifying the help and support people needed. The records also included information about people's individual wishes, preferences and abilities, to help staff provide care in an individualised way.

Is the service responsive?

Where people's care assessments had identified risks we found that staff were aware of these and able to tell us about the care they provided to manage them. For example, carrying out regular positional changes and observational checks. We also saw evidence that other professionals were involved in people's care, such as the doctor and community nurses.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a registered manager, but the person registered with us had left the service. An acting manager was in place, but had not yet registered with us.

The service had in place systems to monitor and assess quality at both corporate and service levels. For example, a regular programme of themed audits, quality visits by the regional manager, meetings for staff, people who use the service and relatives, and systems for monitoring and analysing accidents and incidents.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service, because some people using the service had complex needs. We spoke with three relatives who said, 'I am happy with everything.' Another said, 'This is a lovely home.'

We saw that staff treated people with dignity and respect. Staff were attentive and interacted well with people. We saw that people had their needs assessed and that care plans were in place.

We saw that the service had appropriate medical and non medical equipment. We saw that regular checks and servicing of equipment was undertaken to ensure that it was in safe working order.

We saw that systems were in place for monitoring the quality and service provided.

We found there was an effective complaints system in place at the home.

We found that records were accurate and stored securely.