You are here

Rosewood Lodge Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 30 November 2016

The inspection took place on the 30 and 31 August 2016 and was unannounced. At the last inspection in December 2013 the provider was found to be meeting all of the standards inspected.

Rosewood Lodge residential home provides care and accommodation for up to 20 people. On the days of the inspection 19 people were living at the home. The home was over three floors, with access to all floors either via stairs or the lift. Some bedrooms had an en-suite toilet. There were shared bathrooms, shower facilities and toilets throughout the home. Communal areas included two lounges, one dining area, a front garden and courtyard and hair dressers room.

The service had a registered manager at the time of the inspection. 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 did not always have up to date risk assessments and guidelines that identified how staff should support them with their specific care needs. Where one person was at risk of choking we found staff were not following the support plan so the person received safe care and treatment. Those people at risk did not always have records completed that confirmed what care and support staff had provided relating to their skin care and modified diets.

People felt safe and all but two people had a personal evacuation plans that identified what support they should require in an emergency. Fire checks were undertaken regularly but the building had no fire plan so staff were able to tell the area which would need evacuating in an emergency situation.

People had their medicines administered safely by staff who had received training. People who required their blood sugar levels monitoring did not have their checks undertaken with test equipment that had been calibrated in line with the manufactures guidelines.

People were supported by staff who were happy in the home and who felt supported by the manager. Staff had received regular supervision and training and staff meetings were an opportunity for staff to raise any changes or concerns. Staff had adequate checks completed prior to working with vulnerable people.

People and relatives were happy with the care they received and felt staff were kind and caring. One person who was supported with their lunch did not receive their meal in an inclusive, supportive manner. There was a lack of engagement and one to one support to provide this person with a positive meal experience. People were supported to maintain relationships with people who were important to them.

People’s consent to care and treatment was obtained and care plans reflected if people had capacity to make their own decisions. People were involved in their care planning and referrals were made to health care professionals when required.

The environment was not always enabling a dignified environment for people living at Rosewood Lodge. People had access to activities and people told us they enjoyed the meals.

People, relative’s, health professionals and staff views were sought. People and relatives felt able to raise any concerns and there was a complaints policy in place. The provider had quality assurance systems in place that monitored the quality and safety of the service and identified areas for improvement, although some areas of concern had not been identified prior to this inspection.

We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 30 November 2016

The service was not always safe.

Care plans did not always contain guidelines for staff to follow relating to people’s care needs.

People received their medicines safely although manufactures guidelines were not being followed for blood monitoring machines.

People felt safe and staff were able to demonstrate what they would do if they had concerns for people’s safety although the building required an updated fire plan.

People were supported by staff who had adequate checks in place to ensure their suitability to work with vulnerable adults, prior to starting employment.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 30 November 2016

The service was not always effective.

People were happy with the meals and felt able to choose alternatives although one person was not always supported in an inclusive, supportive manner.

People were supported by staff who received regular supervision and training to ensure they were competent and skilled to meet their individual care needs.

People were supported by staff to make decisions about their care in accordance with current legislation and care plans reflected people’s capacity to make their own decisions.

People were supported to see health care professionals according to their individual needs.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 30 November 2016

The service was not always caring.

The environment was not always enabling people to receive dignified care. People and relatives felt staff demonstrated a kind and caring approach.

People had choices and were happy with their care and care staff.

People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 November 2016

The service was responsive.

People were involved in the care planning process. Care plans were evaluated and most changes to people’s care plans had been updated.

People and relatives felt happy to raise a complaint and were aware of the provider’s complaints policy.

People were happy with the social activities within the home and these were planned to enable people to participate.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 30 November 2016

The service was not always well-led.

The provider had quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service but not all areas had been identified prior to this inspection.

People were supported by staff who felt well supported and happy with the management of the home.

People, relatives, staff and health professionals’ feedback was sought and comments received were shared within the service so that improvements could be made.