The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care Home
  • Care home ,
  • Care home

Archived: Rosebank

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

58 Bergholt Road, Colchester, Essex, CO4 5AE (01206) 853091

Provided and run by:
Mr & Mrs M Cockman

All Inspections

10 December 2015

During a routine inspection

Rosebank provides care and support for up to seven adults who have a learning disability. There were five people living in the service when we inspected on 10 December 2015.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

There were procedures in place which safeguarded the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. Staff understood the various types of abuse and knew who to report any concerns to.

Staff understood how to minimise risks and provide people with safe care. Procedures and processes were in place to guide staff on how to ensure the safety of the people who used the service. These included checks on the environment and risk assessments which identified how risks to people were minimised.

Recruitment checks on staff were carried out with sufficient numbers employed who had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs. People were treated with kindness by the staff. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and interacted with people in a caring and compassionate manner.

Appropriate arrangements were in place to ensure people’s medicines were obtained, stored and administered safely. People were encouraged to attend appointments with other health care professionals to maintain their health and well-being.

Care and support was based on the assessed needs of each person. People’s care records contained information about how they communicated and their ability to make decisions.

People were encouraged to pursue their hobbies and interests and to maintain links within the community.

People or their representatives were supported to make decisions about how they led their lives and wanted to be supported. Where they lacked capacity, appropriate actions had been taken to ensure decisions were made in the person’s best interests. The service was up to date with changes regarding the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People’s nutritional needs were being assessed and they were supported to eat and drink sufficiently. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible but where additional support was needed this was provided in a caring, respectful manner.

Systems in place did not consistently reflect the actions taken in response to concerns raised.

There was an open and transparent culture in the service. Staff were aware of the values of the service and understood their roles and responsibilities. Audits and quality assurance surveys were used to identify shortfalls and drive improvement in the service.

9 July 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We found that the service had taken steps to ensure people's safety. Action had been taken to remove flammable material from an area used for smoking and the area was no longer used for smoking. We saw that there was a comprehensive fire risk assessment in place. The service had a detailed Legionella policy and procedure and had sent samples for Legionella testing which had shown negative.

13 May 2013

During a routine inspection

On this inspection we spoke to four people who used the service and three members of staff. People told us they were happy with the care they received. One person said "I'm happy here, I can go shopping and buy some biscuits.' Another said "I go to Clacton every two months and I can also go on my birthday.'

We found that people were asked about their preferences and that they had given consent to their care plans. Where people were not able to give consent, the provider had acted in accordance with legislation.

People's care and welfare was protected through effective care planning and review.

There was effective policy and procedures in place that ensured that people received medication in a timely and safe way.

People were protected from the risk of infection as staff were properly trained in infection control and handling food. Staff had a good knowledge of what actions to take and who to inform in the event of an outbreak.

There were sufficient numbers of NVQ trained staff on duty which ensured that people were safe and that they could pursue their usual activities.

The service was clean and both the building and grounds were well maintained. However, we found that people were not always protected from fire risks associated with smoking or from risks associated with legionella.

8 June 2012

During a routine inspection

Some of the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences and others were able to tell us about living at Rosebank.

We gathered evidence of people's experiences of the service by talking to people, observing how people spent their time and noting how they interacted with other people living in the home and with staff.

During our visit we spoke generally with some people who told us they liked living at at the home. We saw that people smiled and appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff and other people living in the home.