You are here

Rosalyn House Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 2 November 2019

About the service

Rosalyn House is a nursing and residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 40 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 45 people. Accommodation is set over three floors which includes an area dedicated to nursing care.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The provider had taken over Rosalyn House in April 2019 and had started a refurbishment programme. They had identified that the service was no longer ‘Good,’ and work was needed to correct this. However, we did find shortfalls which included how the management team were monitoring and assessing the quality of the service. Audits were not always effective at identifying issues and making plans to correct these.

We found some safety concerns when we inspected. Staff had not received training in how to always safely manage the needs of people who required additional oxygen. An oxygen cylinder was not always stored safely. Potential risks to people were not always assessed or managed to promote their safety.

People were being supported at times to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did not always support this practice.

Staff received training in key areas, but they did not receive training relevant to all those who they supported. New staff received an induction, but the competency checks were not sufficient to show or test if they were capable of working independently with people. Ongoing competency checks for staff were not completed, despite the provider's view about staff practice. Staff said they did not feel supported by the management. They understood they should be challenged if something went wrong, but they felt that their good work and commitment was not praised.

There was not enough staff to meet people’s needs at times. This included spending time with people in conversation and in a social way. They also said they did not have time to look at people’s records.

Staff were seen to be consistently kind to people. Unfortunately, we saw incidents when senior staff and management were not respectful or thoughtful towards some people they supported. People’s dignity was not always promoted by staff and the management team.

People who were at risk of being an unhealthy weight were being regularly checked and professional support had been sought to help them. The manager monitored these people to check they were well. People were also supported to get the right medical intervention when they were unwell. Staff were good at identifying this.

People did not feel involved in the meal and food choices offered to them. Some people and relatives felt the quality of the food was not always as good as it could be. People spoke positively about the chef.

The provider ensured there were staff whose focus was to provide activities. However, they were unable to support lots of people and they were often in one part of the home with limited numbers of people. Staff did not have time to really engage with people in a social way. The management team had not tried to ensure or check that people’s individual interests and what they enjoyed was being promoted and explored at the home.

Staff had a good understanding of how to protect people from possible abuse. Safe recruitment checks were in place. People told us that they felt safe. People received their medicines as prescribed.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating was Good (published in 17 November 2017). Since this rating was awarded the provider has changed but the legal entity remained the same.

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about catheter and pressure care, nursing care, staffing levels and people’s general experience of li

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 2 November 2019

The service was not always safe.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 2 November 2019

The service was not always effective.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 2 November 2019

The service was not always caring.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 2 November 2019

The service was not always responsive.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 2 November 2019

The service was not always well-led.