You are here

Rosecroft Residential Home Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 24 March 2014
Date of Publication: 23 April 2014
Inspection Report published 23 April 2014 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Not met this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 24 March 2014, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service and talked with staff.

Our judgement

We judged that due to records not being kept up to date people were not guaranteed to always receive care and treatment that met their needs.

We have judged that this has a moderate impact on people who use the service, and have told the provider to take action. Please see the 'Action' section within this report.

Reasons for our judgement

This responsive inspection was undertaken because concerns had been raised about the care and support provided to the people who lived in this home. We had also been told that there was insufficient staff employed to provide the level of care to meet people's assessed needs.

During our visit, we walked around the building, spoke to people who lived in the home and talked to the staff on duty. This included care staff, domestic and catering staff.

People told us they were very happy with the way they were cared for and that the staff always treated them with respect. We observed the way in which staff spoke to people and found their attitude to be caring and polite. People told us:

“I am very happy here and I made up my own mind. I just couldn’t manage on my own any longer”.

“There is always plenty of staff and when you ring the bell they are there in seconds”.

"I could not be happier and there is always something to do. I won at bingo again this morning”.

We read a sample of the care files for people who lived in the dementia unit and those who lived in the frail elderly unit. We found that the care plans and risk assessments did not fully reflect people’s individual needs and preferences. Nor did they clearly direct staff in the safe delivery of care. In all the care plans we looked at none of them were sufficiently robust to ensure staff were given enough information to fully meet the needs of the people they supported.

We saw that when people were supposed to have a fortified diet this was not always given. This meant there was a risk of people becoming malnourished. Where people had difficulties swallowing advice from the speech and language therapist was not always requested in a timely manner. We saw from the care records that not everyone had their weight monitored appropriately.

We spent some time in the dementia care unit and spoke to the staff on duty. We found the interaction between the staff and people to be positive and caring even though the staff had not worked at the home for very long. When we looked at the care plans we could not see where additional care plans were put in place for specific needs such a dietary needs or challenging behaviour. This lack of information could also mean people did not get the appropriate level of care and support.

Staff told us they did not routinely read or refer to the care plans but used the handover monitoring sheets as these provided current information about people’s support needs. We checked these sheets and found that they contained limited information and discussed with the manager how staff could be given the time to read the care plans every day. This would ensure all staff were able to deliver the most appropriate care throughout their shift.

Records were kept of doctor’s visits and those of other visiting health care professionals.

Although everyone who lived in Rosecroft had an identified plan of care in place we judged that because of the limited information they contained this had an effect on the people using this service.