• Care Home
  • Care home

Rosecroft Residential Home

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Westfield Drive, Workington, CA14 5AR (01900) 604814

Provided and run by:
Stilecroft (MPS) Limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Our current view of the service

Requires improvement

Updated 13 May 2026

Date of Assessment: 03 June 2026 to 11 June 2026. Rosecroft Residential Home is a residential care home that provides care and accommodation for up to 51 older people, some of whom are living with dementia or requiring support with their mental health.

‘Right support, right care, right culture' is the statutory guidance which supports CQC to make assessments and judgements about services providing support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people. We considered this guidance as there were people using the service who have a learning disability and/or who are autistic.

We assessed the quality statements from the key questions of safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.

We found breaches of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, and good governance. The service did not always ensure the risks in the home environment were identified and acted on. Medicines were not always managed safely. The systems in place to assess and manage the quality and safety of the service were not always effective.

A lack of information or inconsistent information in people’s care plans and risk assessments meant there was a risk people would not experience a seamless transition between different services. Although we observed people being supported to manage their risks safely, these risks were not always recorded effectively in their care plans or risk assessments. However, the service identified and investigated concerns about safety and took action to keep people safe; and safeguarding procedures were followed where required. The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff who worked together well to provide care that met people’s individual needs. The service assessed and managed the risk of infection.

People’s care was delivered in line with national standards or evidence-based good practice guidance. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. People were referred to health and social care partners for specialist support, where required. Systems were in place to monitor people’s care and treatment. However, records were not always completed consistently. People’s assessments did not always include up to date, consistent information about people’s needs. The service did not always ensure the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had been followed.

Staff treated people with kindness and respected them as individuals. Staff promoted people’s independence and people could take part in a variety of activities. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Staff felt well supported by a dedicated registered manager and the management team who prioritised their wellbeing.

The service worked closely with a range of other agencies including GP practices. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People could access care and treatment when they needed it. Staff and managers expressed a commitment to ensuring people did not face discrimination and had equal opportunities within and outside the home. However, people’s care plans did not always include person centred information about their care preferences, goals and aspirations or end of life preferences.

The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. Staff felt the management team were approachable, inclusive and supportive; and felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The service valued diversity in their workforce. The service shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. The provider’s leadership team worked well together with a focus on delivering good care and improving systems.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

 

 

People's experience of the service

Updated 13 May 2026

Throughout the assessment, we generally observed care and support that was caring, and friendly. Staff were respectful and took time to involve people in their care.[

People and their relatives felt people were supported by staff who were caring, friendly and knew them well. One relative told us, “[Person] is always hugging carers and they reciprocate. They speak nicely to them.” Another relative told us, “Staff are good at making people feel cared for.” Another relative told us, “At times, staff go above and beyond. For example, at Christmas they go out to buy a present for each resident. They think about what each person wants or would like and they get it for them.”

Everyone felt people were safe. One relative told us, “[Person] is definitely safe.” Another relative told us, “[Person] is being cared for really well and definitely feels safe with [staff].”

People enjoyed the activities on offer. One relative told us, “The entertainment is good and staff are always trying to get people involved in activities.”

People and their relatives spoke positively about the management of the home. One relative told us, “If I want to know anything or am bothered about something I just have to go to [registered manager] and it would be sorted out.”

Whilst people we spoke with expressed they were happy with their care, our assessment found elements of how the service managed safety and reviewed the quality of care, did not meet the expected standards.