19 October 2015
During a routine inspection
We inspected Rosedene House on 19 October 2015. This was an announced inspection. We told the provider two days before our inspection visit that we would be coming. This was because we wanted to make sure people would be at home to speak with us. The service was last inspected on 7 January 2014. During that inspection visit we found the service was meeting regulations.
Rosedene House provides care and accommodation for up to five people who have a learning disability. There were five people living at the service at the time of the inspection visit.
The service is situated close to the centre of Camborne with access to a public transport network as well as the services own transport.
The service had a registered manager in place. 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 ability to communicate with us was restricted for some people and we therefore supported our judgements using observations.
People told us they felt safe living at Rosedene House. One person said, “It’s nice here staff are very kind to me”. Arrangements were in place to protect people from abuse and unsafe care.
People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. The staff at the service took time to speak with people they were supporting. We saw many positive interactions and people enjoyed talking with staff on duty. Comments included; “I have everything I need” and a staff member said, “There is never a dull moment I love working here, everybody is cared for so well”.
People were supported to lead full and varied lives and staff supported them to engage in a wide variety of activities. One person told us, “I go out every day and the staff help me to do that”. Staff told us, “We do loads of things outside like going into town and going to the pub” and “Most [people using the service] go to day care and one person goes to a work placement during the week”.
The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
People had a choice of meals, snacks and drinks, which they told us they enjoyed. There was flexibility in what people might want to eat. Where people required clinical support with their diet, staff had received appropriate training to support them.
The environment was of a homely nature. Rooms were personalised where people had wanted to include their own items. However, one lounge was not furnished in a way which would make it inviting to use. A wardrobe was part of the first floor lounge furniture, a light shade was missing and a display cabinet was empty.
People had individual support plans, detailing the support they needed and how they wanted this to be provided. Professional we spoke with told us the staff team were responsive to people’s needs and made changes where necessary.
Care records were detailed and contained specific information to guide staff who were supporting people. Life history profiles about each person were developed in a format which was more meaningful for people. This included large print and pictorial information This meant staff were able to use them as communication tools.
Risk assessments were in place for day to day events and to support peoples life choices. For example going out into the community or for smoking. These were all included in people’s care documentation.
Medication procedures were safe. Medicines were administered as prescribed and at the times prescribed. Records were accurate and audited regularly.
There was a system of quality assurance checks in place. People and their relatives were regularly consulted about how the home was run.