• Care Home
  • Care home

Rosehill House

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Moresby, Whitehaven, Cumbria, CA28 6SF (01946) 695235

Provided and run by:
Pamela Dawn Hill-Eades

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 14 October 2025 to 24 October 2025. Rosehill House is a care home providing accommodation and personal care for older adults, some of whom may have a physical disability, a sensory impairment or be living with dementia. It is registered to accommodate up to 23 people. At the time of the assessment there were 16 people residing at the home.

This service has been in Special Measures since 14 May 2025. The provider demonstrated enough improvements that have been made and is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, this service is no longer in Special Measures. However, the service continued to be in breach of the legal regulation Good Governance.

Although improvements had been made with the service’s governance processes and procedures, further improvements were still required. Improvements still required to be embedded in relation to how the provider learned lessons from incidents, supported people to transition between services, and managed people’s needs and risks. Improvements were required to medicines management and how the provider supported staff through supervision and development. Further improvements were required with how they supported people with consent and how they assessed people’s mental capacity where required. Improvements were required to ensure people could participate in meaningful and person-centred activities, to how the service provided people with information, and how they supported people to feed back on the quality of their care. Although leaders were passionate about delivering good care and were compassionate in how they supported people and their staff, systems in place to promote the culture and values of the service required improvements.

However, the provider now detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment effectively. The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people.

 

 

 

 

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of assessment: 7 April 25 – 02 May 2025

Rosehill House is a care home providing accommodation and personal care for older adults, some of whom may have a physical disability, a sensory impairment or be living with dementia. It is registered to accommodate up to 23 people. At the time of the assessment there were 18 people residing at the home.

At the last inspection in January 2018, we rated the home good. This assessment was undertaken due to the receipt of information of concern in relation to culture, risk management, governance and oversight. We found concerns were substantiated. The service is now rated inadequate.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to good governance. Concerns were significant and widespread. Risks to the environment had not been identified or mitigated, including window safety. Health and safety risk assessments were in place; however, they were not current, did not always identify all risks and contained no control measures.

Safe recruitment practices had not been followed and there were mixed views on staffing levels.

Falls, safeguarding concerns and complaints were logged, however there was no evidence of analysis for themes, trends and learning.

Care plans and risk assessments were in place, however they were not always detailed and there was no evidence people were involved in the planning of their care. Hospital passports had been developed but had not been updated or replaced once shared with the hospital.

There was no process to record the application of topical medicines (creams). Other medicines were managed appropriately. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) were not understood or followed.

People’s needs were assessed, and their nutritional needs met. People were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity by staff who knew them well and understood their needs and preferences.

In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded. This service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.

10 January 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out this unannounced inspection on 10 January 2018. Our last inspection of the home was carried out in August 2015. At that inspection we rated the service as good. At this inspection in January 2018 we found the service remained good.

Rosehill House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The home provides personal care and accommodation for up to 23 older adults including people living with dementia. Accommodation is provided in five double and 13 single rooms, all with en-suites. Communal rooms are situated on the ground floor of the home. The home does not have a dining room. CCTV is used in some areas of the home. At the time of our inspection 18 people were living in the home.

There was a registered manager employed in the home. 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.

The environment was well-maintained and the atmosphere was relaxed and homely.

There were processes and practices in place to keep people safe. People told us they felt safe living in Rosehill House and with the staff who supported them. Hazards to people’s safety had been identified and managed.

People were supported by staff who knew them well and were focussed on promoting their independence and well-being. There was a stable staff team who had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs. The service had a programme of training which ensured staff had up to date guidance and information.

The staff knew how to identify and report abuse and to identify any changes to a person’s condition that would require attention. Robust systems were used when new staff were employed to ensure they were suitable to work in the home.

People received the support they required to maintain good health and medicines were handled safely. A feature of the home was the partnership working with external healthcare professionals. Healthcare professionals described the home as “a delight to work with” and staff competence in managing health conditions had “taken a big step up in the last couple of years”. The home received high praise from NHS teams for people in the home staying pressure sore free for over two years and this was described by this team as a “fantastic achievement.”

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. They were involved in planning their own support and which activities they wanted to take part in. There was a full programme of activities for people to take part in and people were supported to follow individual interests and hobbies.

We made a recommendation about assessing people’s capacity to make decisions and to take this into consideration in the use of CCTV cameras.

Staff were caring and treated people with dignity and respect. People were provided with meals and drinks that they enjoyed. The staff were knowledgeable about the support people required to enjoy their meals and drinks safely and this was provided.

The registered manager and senior staff team carried out checks on the premises and quality of the service, including seeking people's views, to ensure people received a high quality, safe service that met their needs. The management structure in the home had been strengthened since the last inspection and this had led to improvements in the service, such as care planning and the thoroughness of audits.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

29/05/2015

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection that took place on 29th May 2015.

Rosehill House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 23 people. It is a listed Georgian property set in its own grounds near to Whitehaven. Accommodation is provided in five double and 13 single rooms, all with en-suites. Communal rooms are situated on the ground floor of the home. The home does not have a dining room.

The provider is also the registered manager. 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.

Staff in the home were aware of their responsibilities in keeping vulnerable people free from harm and abuse.

The provider ensured that she completed risk assessments and managed any risks to individuals.

Staffing levels were suitable and people said the team were able to meet their needs.

Staff were recruited in a safe way.

There were suitable arrangements in place if there were any staffing matters of a disciplinary nature.

Medicines were managed correctly.

We saw that people were asked their consent and that the staff were aware of individual rights. No one was being deprived of their liberty.

Staff were given suitable induction, training, supervision and appraisal.

People told us they were satisfied with the food provided.

We saw that there had been some improvements to the environment and the provider agreed to our recommendation to purchase some small dining tables.

We looked at care plans and found that these were detailed and up to date and based on sound assessments. People were involved and aware of their own plans.

People told us they were satisfied with the range of activities and outings on offer. Regular church services were held in the home.

We spoke to people on the day who felt comfortable making complaints both informally and formally. We had some contact after the inspection with people who did not feel able to complain directly. We recommended that the provider look at the arrangements in place for people and their families to make complaints in a safe way.

The registered provider was suitably trained and experienced. There was a newly appointed deputy who would support her in the role. The senior care team were aware of their responsibilities as shift leaders. Staff knew how the home was managed and were comfortable with the arrangements in place.

The provider promoted a culture of openness and transparency where the focus was on the needs of people in the home. Staff felt that they could question decisions and their views were taken into account. People in the home were consulted and told us their wishes were respected.

Consultation with people in the home and their relatives was part of the quality assurance system. We saw evidence to show that there were regular quality audits of all aspects of the service. Changes had been made as a result of monitoring quality.

Partnership working with health colleagues had improved and new ways of communication had been developed.

11 January 2014

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with told us they were happy living at Rosehill Residential Care Home and said the staff in the home provided a good standard of care. People made many positive comments about the staff employed in the home and the meals provided. They told us they made choices about their lives and the decisions they made were respected.

The home had created a friendly, lively and welcoming atmosphere. People told us things like, 'The staff can't do enough for you. They know me very well.' Another said, 'I really like being here, the staff are so kind.' And 'The food is very good with lots of choices, all homemade.'

We were told that staff were very attentive and knew their needs and care requirements. We judged that there were sufficient staff to meet the needs of the people living there. One person told us: 'The staff are very attentive, they always come very quickly when I need assistance.'

The provider had recently improved the way it monitored the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others. We found that the premises were maintained to an appropriate standard of cleanliness and hygiene.

While people living in the home, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe premises, the design and layout of the home was not fully meeting people's needs. The lack of a dining room and the layout of the main lounge was not conducive to promoting dignity or for carrying out basic daily living such as eating a meal.

13 April 2012

During a routine inspection

People who use the service told us the staff were very kind and treated them well. They told us they felt safe and liked living at the home. People told us they had been given plenty of information about the service being provided to enable them to a make an informed choice about whether the home was the right place to meet their needs. We were told that staff were very attentive and knew their needs and care requirements.

One person told us: 'The staff are very attentive, they always come very quickly when I need assistance.'

Another said: 'This is the best place for anyone, you couldn't find a better place.'

A relative told us 'Staff and the owner are very approachable ' they will always sort out my problems.'

Another relative told us: 'My mum loves it here ' she doesn't want to go home.'