You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 20 April 2018

This unannounced comprehensive inspection took place on 5 March 2018.

Rosecroft is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service was not registered to provide nursing care. The service provides accommodation for up to five people who have learning disabilities and needed a range of support with their care and health needs.

Accommodation was provided in a detached chalet bungalow in a quiet residential area, close to public transport links and local and shops. Accommodation was arranged over two floors and each person had their own bedroom. The service benefitted from an enclosed back garden and a separate activities building set within the grounds.

At our last inspection on 16 December 2016, the service was rated ‘Good’ in the Effective, Caring and Responsive domains and ‘Requires improvement’ in the Safe and Well Led domains. The overall judgement rating for the service was ‘Requires Improvement’ and we found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014; Regulation 17 HSCA RA Regulations 2014 Good Governance and Regulation 19 HSCA RA Regulations 2014 Fit and proper persons employed. This was because we found that the provider had not ensured systems or processes to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of services were fully effective and the provider had not fully applied established recruitment systems to ensure all processes were embedded into practice.

At this inspection, we found that improvements have been made.

There were now effective staff recruitment and selection processes in place. A member of staff had been employed since our last inspection and the recruitment process had been robust and all the appropriate checks were completed before staff were employed.

We found there was clear and detailed guidance in place for staff to follow for people who had specific health conditions, for example, epilepsy. The guidance included individual symptoms or indicators which may precede a seizure and the support the person would need.

Systems were now in place to enable the provider to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service and these were being followed.

This service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who is 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. The registered manager was also responsible for looking after other services owned by the same provider.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

Staffing arrangements were flexible in order to meet people's individual needs. Rotas and our observations noted sufficient numbers of skilled staff were deployed to ensure people's needs were met safely.

Staff received a range of training and regular support to keep their skills up to date in order to support people appropriately. Staff spoke positively about communication between staff at the service.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of what constituted abuse and how to report if concerns were raised.

Measures to manage risk were as least restrictive as possible to protect people's freedom. Risk management considered people's physical and mental health needs.

Medicines were safely managed on people's behalf as people were not able to manage their o

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 20 April 2018

The service was safe.

Checks were in place so only suitable staff were employed.

There were enough staff to safely support people, and there was guidance in place and followed by staff to ensure people’s safety.

Potential risks to people’s health and welfare were acted on.

People were supported by staff who had received training and understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding.

People's medicines were administered by trained competent staff.

Effective

Good

Updated 20 April 2018

The service was effective.

Pre-assessment processes ensured staff were provided with the information required to meet people's needs effectively.

People were supported by staff who received an induction and training which provided them with the skills for the job.

People were supported to maintain a healthy diet and good health. People's health needs were managed well through regular contact with community health professionals.

People's rights were protected because the service followed the appropriate guidance. Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where people’s freedom was restricted Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards were in place.

Caring

Good

Updated 20 April 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring.

Staff spoke confidently about people's specific needs and how they liked to be supported.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and supported them to make decisions and express their views.

Staff promoted people's equality, diversity and ensured their human rights were upheld.

People were supported to communicate with staff in a variety of ways to ensure their voice was heard.

Responsive

Good

Updated 20 April 2018

The service was responsive.

Care files were personalised to reflect people's personal preferences, which were met with staff support.

People were supported to take part in a variety of activities that were of interest to them.

Plans were in place to ensure people maintained relationships with their loved ones.

There was a complaints system in place and people knew how to complain.

Well-led

Good

Updated 20 April 2018

The service was well-led.

Staff spoke positively about communication between staff at the service.

The service sought people's views through questionnaires and regular contact via phone calls and visits.

The provider’s visions and values centred around the people they supported, which ensured their equality, diversity and human rights were respected.

There were a number of audits in place to assess the quality of the service provided.