You are here

Archived: Rosehill Residential Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 October 2016

This unannounced inspection took place on 15 and 16 September 2016. We last inspected the service on 16 November 2013 under the regulations that were in force at the time.

Rosehill Residential Home is owned by The Henry Lonsdale Charitable Trust and situated on the outskirts of Carlisle. The home provides care for up to 40 older people who may have various forms of dementia related conditions.

The home is divided into four units all at ground floor level. Each unit has lounge and dining facilities and adapted bathing facilities. There are extensive well maintained gardens and grounds.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

Care plans were person centred and showed that individual preferences were taken into account. Care plans were subject to regular review to ensure they met people’s changing needs. This meant people received personalised care. They were easy to read and based on assessment and reflected the needs of people. Risk assessments were carried out and plans were put in place to reduce risks to people’ safety and welfare.

Where people were not able to make important decisions about their lives the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed to protect their rights. Staff were aware of how to identify and report abuse. There were policies in place that outlined what to do if staff had concerns about the practice of a colleague.

The staff were trained to an appropriate standard and received regular supervision and appraisal. As part of their recruitment process the service carried out background checks on new staff. Staffing levels during the day were acceptable. At night there was only two staff on duty which at times may have been insufficient to meet people’s needs in a timely manner. The provider acted immediately and organised for staffing to be increased at night. We have made a recommendation relating to monitoring staffing levels.

The service managed medicines appropriately. They were correctly stored, monitored and administered in accordance with the prescription. People were supported to maintain their health and to access health services if needed. People who required support with eating and drinking received it and had their nutrition and hydration support needs regularly assessed.

Staff had developed good relationships with people and communicated in a kind and caring manner. They were aware of how to treat people with dignity and respect. Policies were in place that outlined acceptable standards in this area.

There was a complaints procedure in place that outlined how to make a complaint and how long it would take to deal with. People were aware of how to raise a complaint and who to speak to about any concerns they had.

The home was well led by a registered manager who had a vision for the future of the service. A quality assurance system was in place that was utilised to improve the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 22 October 2016

The service was safe.

We made a recommendation about the staffing levels

Appropriate checks were carried out during the recruitment of staff.

Staff knew how to identify and report potential abuse.

Effective

Good

Updated 22 October 2016

The service was effective.

Staff were trained and supported to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to provide the care people required.

The service worked in conjunction with other health and social care providers to try to ensure good outcomes for people who used the service.

People received adequate support with nutrition and hydration.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 October 2016

The service was caring.

People told us they felt they were well cared for.

Staff treated people in a dignified manner.

There were policies and procedures in place to ensure people were not discriminated against.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 October 2016

The service was responsive to people’s needs.

People made choices about their lives and were included in decisions about their care. They were included in planning the care they received.

Support plans were written in a clear and concise way so that they could be easily understood.

People were able to raise issues with the service in a number of ways including formally via a complaints process.

Well-led

Good

Updated 22 October 2016

The service was well-led.

The service had a robust quality assurance system in place.

The registered manager had a vision for the future of the service that was based on providing good and responsive care.

People were asked for their views about the service and knew how to contact a member of the management team if they needed.