Archived: Rosglen Residential Home

At the time of our inspection two people were living at Rosglen Residential Home. We spoke with both people individually, a relative of one of the people who lived there, the manager and two support workers as well as reviewing relevant documentation.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

This is a summary of what we found

Is the service safe?

There were risk assessments in place where required for people using the service in relation to their support and care provision. People were not put at unnecessary risk, but also had choice and remained in control of their own decisions. This meant that people's independence was promoted and they were not restricted from engaging in and accessing the wider community.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected. This reduced the risk to people and helped the service to continually improve.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to DoLS. No applications had been submitted under this legislation as none had been required. Staff received relevant training and were able to describe when a DoLS application would be necessary. This meant that people were safeguarded appropriately in line with current legislation.

Although there were adequate arrangements in place to manage medicines, we noted some areas of potential risk. We were assured by the manager that these would be addressed.

Recruitment practices were safe, thorough and effective procedures were in place to ensure staff were suitable for the role. People's personal information was protected and only accessible to relevant staff with the appropriate authorisation.

Is the service effective?

People living at the home had access to advocacy services which meant that when required, people could access additional support. People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in compiling their individual support plans. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. People said that their support reflected their current needs.

Other professionals and individuals were involved in regular meetings and reviews with each individual to ensure that their care and support was still appropriate.

Is the service caring?

During our visit we saw that care workers interacted positively and gave encouragement when supporting people. People told us, 'I get on with them [staff]'they come with me if I need support. I do my own things I want to do, I go out when I want, I tell them when I'm back' and 'I really get on with my keyworker.' A relative we spoke with said of their family member, 'They [staff] do look after them well.'

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People completed a range of activities in and outside the service regularly. People were assisted to access the community and to participate in voluntary work and college courses.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy and said they would tell staff. Two people had made a complaint and both were satisfied with the outcomes. We looked at how this complaint had been dealt with and found that it had been handled appropriately and in a timely manner. People were therefore assured that complaints would be investigated and action taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

The service had a quality assurance system and records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. This meant that actions to improve were continuously in place.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Discussions on best practice, improved ways of working and incidents reviews were common throughout formal team meetings and informal discussions.