You are here

Archived: Rose Cottage Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 17 December 2019

About the service

Rose Cottage is an adapted care home providing accommodation and personal care for seven people living with a learning disability who are aged 18 years and over. At the time of the inspection, six people were living in the service.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

The Secretary of State has asked the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to conduct a thematic review and to make recommendations about the use of restrictive interventions in settings that provide care for people with or who might have mental health problems, learning disabilities and/or autism. Thematic reviews look in-depth at specific issues concerning quality of care across the health and social care sectors. They expand our understanding of both good and poor practice and of the potential drivers of improvement.

As part of thematic review, we carried out a survey with the registered manager at this inspection. This considered whether the service used any restrictive intervention practices (restraint, seclusion and segregation) when supporting people.

The service used positive behaviour support principles to support people in the least restrictive way. No restrictive intervention practices were used.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were safe, two said they were happy living in the service and people were relaxed and comfortable with each other and staff. Relatives said they were very happy with the service their relatives received. However, we found some minor issues around medication management and risk assessment that had not been identified through the services own quality checks. The management team were enthusiastic and motivated to drive improvement and make changes to the service. However, current shared management of the service by the registered manager and deputy were not providing the continuity and oversight needed, to address issues and improve communication. These are areas for improvement.

Staff felt much happier, stating that the turnover of staff had been positive and the culture in the service much improved, with staff more motivated. There was an improving picture around people getting out and leading more active and stimulating lives, achievable goals were being set but more needed to be done to make activities meaningful and to evaluate and review the goals set.

We observed that staff engagements with people, showed kindness, respect and compassion. They handled people’s privacy and dignity well. People respected each other’s private space. People were supported to develop their potential for greater independence and this will benefit from ongoing improvements to setting achievable goals for people to aspire to. Detailed plans of care informed staff support of people in accordance with their personal preferences.

New staff received an appropriate induction to their role and a full range of training was provided to all staff to ensure they developed the right knowledge and skills to support people safely. Overall staff said they were happy and felt supported by the Registered and deputy managers. Risks were appropriately assessed. Staff demonstrated an awareness of safeguarding. They knew how to protect people from abuse.

There were enough staff to support people’s day to day needs safely. A safe system of recruitment was in place to ensure the suitability of new staff. There was a low level of incidents and accidents, but these were analysed to mitigate furthe

Inspection areas



Updated 17 December 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 17 December 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 17 December 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 17 December 2019

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 17 December 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.