Rosecroft Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance. The systems to assess and manage the quality and safety of the service were not always effective.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Staff understood about equality and diversity and wanted to provide compassionate care.

The registered manager told us, “I want people to have a good life. I have a good working relationship with families and the residents know me.” This was reflected in the feedback we received from people and their relatives, and the staff working at the home. One relative told us, “The home is welcoming and friendly. [Registered manager] does a lot of things to make it a better home.” One staff member told us, “It’s a joy to work here. You can see that from the smile on my face.”

We observed staff demonstrating respect for each other and the people they were supporting.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Senior managers worked closely with the home and supported the registered manager. The registered manager told us, “I have a lot of support from senior management. We speak often.” The managing director told us, “We see people are happy here. The focus right now is to continue making improvements, upgrading the living environment. We are also introducing more technology to enhance care records.”

Staff felt the management team were approachable, inclusive and supportive. One staff member told us, “The management is good, supportive, and there is lots of flexibility.”

One professional visiting the service told us, “The management team listen. There is never any defensiveness, and they fix things when needed.”

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The service had an up-to-date whistleblowing policy which staff understood. One staff member told us, “I would feel able to whistle blow, and could approach the regional manager, if I needed to.” Another staff member told us, “I am able to approach the [registered manager] and am confident they would act on issues.”

Staff were able to report concerns in one-to-one meetings and could speak with the registered manager at any time.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff had access to an equality and diversity policy.

Staff we spoke with felt well treated by managers and colleagues and did not express any concerns about discrimination within the service. One staff member told us, “We are like a little family and support each other.”

The service did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The service’s processes had not identified the issues we found at this inspection.

Systems in place to update and audit care plans and risk assessments were not effective. This meant the provider could not be assured they would identify and act on incorrect, inconsistent or out of date information.

Processes to ensure people were being supported in a safe environment, were not always effective. This meant there was an increased risk in relation to fire, electrical shocks, scalding and legionella.

Systems to ensure people received their medications safely and in line with their needs, were not always effective. Medicines audits had not identified issues with management of creams, as required medicines and temperature records. This meant the provider could not be assured it would identify and act on medicines issues.

Systems to ensure consent had been sought or the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had been followed, were not always effective. This meant the provider could not be assured it had considered the requirements of GDPR, people’s consent or dignity in relation to CCTV, and least restrictive options in relation to other care related decisions.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. The managing director told us, “[Registered manager] has built a good team, and great connections with partner agencies.”

They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. A visiting professional told us, “We worked together with the home to ensure a person (who had significant needs), was advocated for and received the right care. This person has really improved while living at the home.”

The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The leadership team worked well together with a focus on delivering good care and improving systems. At the time of our inspection, a training event was taking place on the premises with senior management attending.

Staff were supported to prioritise time to develop their skills around improvement and innovation. One staff member told us, “Even though I already had leadership knowledge, I was able to do in-house leadership training here.”

The registered manager had been responsive to concerns found during the inspection.