• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Roshni

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

19 Reigate Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 5NF (01903) 505793

Provided and run by:
Mrs N Oderuth

All Inspections

7 & 8 January 2016

During a routine inspection

Roshni is a residential care home which provides care and support for up to 16 older people living with dementia. There were 13 people living at the home at the time of our inspection.

The home was managed by the provider who is in day to day charge and worked alongside staff in order to provide care for people. The provider is the person who has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law. Providers are often the owner of the service and are the ‘registered person’ with the CQC. 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 home was previously inspected on 24 July 2014 and identified one breach of regulation in relation to respecting and involving people who use the service. We found that the provider had taken action to address these concerns. People were now able to make choices about the care they received. A member of staff spoke with us and told us they tried to encourage people to make choices about their daily routines.

People were cared for by staff who knew how to recognise the signs of possible abuse. Staff were able to identify a range of types of abuse including physical, financial and verbal. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to keeping people safe. The manager was able to explain the process which would be followed if a concern was raised and felt confident that staff would report any concerns.

Risk assessments were in place and reviewed monthly. Where a person was identified as being at risk actions were identified on how to reduce the risk and referrals were made to health professionals as required.

Safe recruitment practices were in place and records showed appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. We asked one person if there were enough staff and were told “there is without a doubt”. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to keep people safe and meet their needs.

Policies and procedures were in place to ensure the safe ordering, administration, storage and disposal of medicines. We observed medicines being administered and staff doing this safely. The manager completed an observation of staff to ensure they were competent in the administration of medicines.

Consent to care and treatment was sought in line with legislation and guidance. The manager told us that DoLS applications had been made for all people living at the service. Capacity assessments had been completed appropriately for people and were in their care records.

Staff had undertaken appropriate training to ensure that they had to skills and competencies to meet people’s needs. New staff undertook a comprehensive induction programme which included essential training and shadowing of experienced care staff. New members of staff shadowed existing members of staff for two weeks to ensure that they were confident before supporting people.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to health professionals. Staff worked in collaboration with professionals such as GPs and the falls prevention team to ensure advice was taken when needed and people’s needs were met.

People received enough to eat and drink. People who were at risk were weighed on a monthly basis and referrals or advice were sought where people were identified as being at risk.

Staff knew people well and they were treated in a dignified and respectful way. We were told “I’m quite happy, I couldn’t complain” and “we’re always well looked after”. Relatives also told us “staff are patient when they talk to her” and “I can’t think of one thing I can fault them on”.

Family and friends were able to visit without restriction and relatives told us that staff were always welcoming and happy to spend time speaking with them about their family members. Relatives told us that they felt involved in the care their family member received and that they had regular reviews with the manager, we were told “they’ve always kept us informed” another relative told us “any knocks or stumbles and we’re told about it”.

The care that people received was responsive to their needs. Care plans included information on people’s key relationships, personality and preferences. They also contained information on people’s social and physical needs. The manager told us that following the previous inspection they had updated everyone’s care plans to ensure they reflected people’s needs and contained information on their life history. They told us “the first thing we did were the care plans. There’s been a big change with them. I’m so pleased, there’s a lot more detail. However we saw that at times one person displayed behaviour which may be challenging. We saw that while this was recorded in their daily notes, behavioural monitoring charts were not in place and staff were unsure how often this person displayed this behaviour and whether there was a pattern to this behaviour.

People were able to make choices about the care they received. A member of staff spoke with us and told us they try to encourage people to make choices about their daily routines.

Our last inspection identified concerns that activities were not designed to enable people with dementia to take part in meaningful activities and that there was little in the way of objects or pictures to stimulate people with dementia. We saw that the provider had taken action to address these concerns and improvements had been made. On the second day of our inspection an external entertainer visited the home. The entertainer used music and reminiscence to engaged people and encourage them to talk about their life. We also saw that throughout both days staff interacted with people and supported them to take part in activities which were planned in line with their prefences.

There was a complaints policy in place and the manager spoke with us about how they would respond to a complaint. The manger told us there had been no complaint made in the last 12 months.

The manager spoke with us about the vision for the home and told us “we run as a big family. We offer people the best care we can, they are here to be safe, comfortable and we respect their privacy and dignity. We give them choice”. Staff shared this vision.

People and relatives spoke positively of the care provided and told us that staff knew people well and there was a consistent team within the home. One person told us “it’s a lovely home”. A relative told us “I’m very pleased with the care, it’s excellent”.

24 July 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.

This was an unannounced inspection.

Roshni is a small care home service that provides care without nursing for up to 16 people living with dementia. People required support to help them manage their day-to-day living such as help to eat, wash and dress.

The home was managed by the provider who is in day to day charge and worked alongside staff in order to provide care to people. The provider is the person who has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law. Providers are often the owner of the service and are the ‘registered person’ with the CQC. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Some people and their relatives were positive about their experience of the home and we observed positive interactions between staff and residents during our inspection. However, we also observed that care was not consistently delivered to a good standard. People did not always get the care and support they needed at the time they needed it.

The home was not consistently responsive to people’s individual needs. Activities were provided such as games and armchair exercises however these were not based on people’s individual histories or interests. We did not see activities that were designed to support people with dementia to have a meaningful life. There was little in the way of objects or pictures to stimulate people with dementia. People’s views and wishes were not always taken into account during the course of day to day activities within the home such as whether people wished to have the television on or windows open.

Staff followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff observed the key principles of the MCA in their day to day work checking with people that they were happy for them to undertake care tasks before they proceeded. The service had good systems in place to keep people safe. Assessments of risk had been developed and reviewed. People told us the care staff were good to them and they felt safe. Staff knew how to recognise the signs of abuse and the types of abuse people might be at risk of and to report any concerns they may have. People told us that their needs were met and staff knew what they were doing. Health and social care professionals told us they did not have concerns regarding the care people received.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient to their needs and there was a good choice of food. Records showed people had access to healthcare professionals when they needed them as well as regular appointments with services such as chiropody.

The provider had quality assurance processes in place. Repair and maintenance issues were identified and a programme of action was in place. The provider sought feedback through questionnaires from relatives of people who lived at the home. We saw that feedback received had been positive and so no actions had been identified. The provider told us that they sought feedback from people who lived at the home on an informal basis. The provider was unable to demonstrate that feedback was used to improve the service people received.

We found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

2 August 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people who used the service and the relatives of one person. We also spoke with a volunteer at the service, two staff members and the registered manager . People told us they were happy living at Roshni and felt safe. One person said staff were 'Very friendly, very kind.' Another person said, 'I haven't had any problems here.'

We found that consent was obtained prior to people receiving care and support. Consent was primarily obtained verbally and staff understood how to do this in a way that protected people's rights and dignity. People were offered the opportunity to make choices and be involved in their care.

We found that people's care was planned and delivered in line with their needs and preferences. People's care needs were regularly reviewed and updated to reflect their most up to date needs.

People who used the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises. The building was accessible to people who had difficulties with mobility. Maintenance issues were addressed swiftly and there were routine checks of environmental risks.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. Staff were given appropriate training, supervision and support to carry out their roles.

The home had systems in place to monitor the quality of service provision.

5 September 2012

During a themed inspection looking at Dignity and Nutrition

People told us what it was like to live at this home and described how they were treated by staff and their involvement in making choices about their care. They told us about the quality and choice of food and drink available. This was because this inspection was part of a themed inspection programme to assess whether older people living in care homes were treated with dignity and respect and whether their nutritional needs were met.

The inspection team was led by a CQC inspector joined by an Expert by Experience (people who have experience of using services and who can provide that perspective). We spoke with four people who lived in the home and observed the care and support provided to others who were unable to communicate verbally. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

People told us they were happy living at Roshni Rest Home and they said the staff were friendly. People said they were comfortable talking to staff and staff responded to them quickly. People said they felt they were safe and their possessions were safe, too.

People said they liked the food and always had enough to eat and drink.

People told us there was a variety of activities for them to enjoy and they were able to participate in activities they liked.