You are here

Archived: Rosevilla Nursing Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 15 January 2015

We inspected Rosevilla on 2 October 2014. The inspection was unannounced.

Rosevilla provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 35 people. Nursing care is primarily provided to older people who have physical health needs. However some people who use the service may also have mental health needs, such as dementia.

At the time of our inspection there were 27 people using the service.

There was no registered manager at the service as the previous registered manager had left the service on 12 August 2014. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

A new manager had been recruited and at the time of our inspection they were working through their induction and probationary period. This showed that the provider had taken prompt action to recruit a new manager and the provider informed us the manager would apply to register with us once they had completed their probationary period.

At the last inspection on 16 July 2014 we asked the provider to take immediate action to make improvements. This was in relation to the content and accuracy of the information contained in people’s care records and how risks to people’s safety were identified, managed and reviewed. We also asked for immediate action to be made to how the quality of care was assessed and monitored and how incidents were investigated and managed. During this inspection we identified that these actions have now been completed.

People who used the service and their relatives told us they were happy with the care and we saw that people were treated with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. The staff enabled people to make decisions about their care by giving people information in a manner that reflected their understanding.

Some people who used the service were unable to make certain decisions about their care. In these circumstances the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were being followed. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the DoLS set out the requirements that ensure where appropriate, decisions are made in people’s best interests when they are unable to do this for themselves.

The staff understood how to keep people safe and safety concerns were reported and investigated to prevent the risk of harm. Medicines were given to people in a safe manner and the environment and equipment within it were regularly checked to ensure its safety.

The staff received regular training and their learning needs and competencies were monitored by the managers to ensure they had the knowledge and skills required to meet people’s needs.

People were supported to eat and drink and staff monitored people’s health and wellbeing. Staff understood when they needed to seek professional advice and support to enable people to access health, social and medical support when required.

There were enough staff available to keep people safe, but improvements were needed to ensure the staff had the time to meet people’s individual care preferences and wellbeing needs.

People who used the service, their relatives and the staff told us that the new manager and operations manager had made significant improvements to the quality of care. The managers regularly assessed and monitored the quality of care by completing audits and seeking feedback from people who used the service

Inspection areas



Updated 15 January 2015

The service was safe. Staff knew how to keep people safe and how to report any safety concerns.

Safety concerns were assessed and managed and regular checks were made to ensure the environment and equipment was safe.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to keep people safe and medicines were managed safely.



Updated 15 January 2015

The service was effective. People were supported to eat and drink and staff received training that enabled them to provide care and support.

Staff monitored people’s health and wellbeing and worked with other professionals to ensure people received the right care at the right time.

When people did not have the ability to make decisions about their own care the staff followed the legal requirements that ensured decisions were made in people’s best interests.



Updated 15 January 2015

The service was caring. Care was delivered with kindness and compassion.

People were treated with dignity and respect and their right to privacy and independence was promoted.

The staff enabled people to be involved in making decisions about their care.


Requires improvement

Updated 15 January 2015

The service was not consistently responsive. Improvements were needed to ensure people’s care preferences and wellbeing needs were consistently met.

People and their relatives were involved in the assessment and review of their care to ensure there was a record of their care preferences.

The provider sought, listened to and acted upon feedback from people who used the service to improve care.



Updated 15 January 2015

The service was well led. The service was open, honest and supportive to people who used the service, their relatives and the staff.

Effective systems were used to regularly assess and monitor the quality and drive improvements.

The provider and management team were committed to improve the quality of care. Plans were in place to show this.