You are here

Archived: Rosedale Manor Care Home

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Updated 8 June 2014

Rosedale Manor is a care home for up to 80 people. At the time of the inspection 55 people lived in the home. It provides care and support for people with severe and enduring mental health needs; older people who have dementia and people who require nursing care. Rosedale Manor is a two storey purpose built home which is divided into three units.    

A new manager had been in post two weeks at the time of this inspection and therefore they were not currently registered with the Commission.

People told us they were happy living at the home and they felt that the staff understood their needs.

We found that people where possible were involved in most decisions about their care and support. Staff made appropriate referrals to other professionals and community services. We saw that the care staff team understood people’s care and support needs, and the staff we observed were kind and treated people with respect.

We found the home was clean and hygienic.

Records showed that CQC had been notified, as required, of all the incidents in the home that could affect the health, safety and welfare of people.

We looked at the care records of six people who lived at Rosedale Manor. We found there was detailed information about the care and support people required and that it was written in a way that recognised people’s needs. This meant that the person was put at the centre of what was being described. We saw that records had been reviewed over the last month, which meant that staff had up to date information about the people they supported.

We found that good recruitment practices were in place and that pre-employment checks were completed prior to a new member of staff working at the home.

We saw that Rosedale Manor had systems in place to ensure that people were protected from the risk of potential harm or abuse. We saw the home had polices and procedure in place to guide staff in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and deprivations of liberty safeguards, safeguarding and staff recruitment.

Inspection areas


Improvements required

Updated 8 June 2014

The service was not safe because people did not have the choice to lock their own bedroom door. This was a breech of Regulation 15 (1)(a)(b) HSCA 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. People who use the service were not protected against the risks associated with unsafe or unsuitable premises, by the bedroom doors at Rosedale Manor Care Home not having locks to ensure safety of belongings and dignity and privacy being maintained.

We had a discussion with the manager regarding the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and they confirmed they had a copy of the Act’s codes of practice and understood when an application should be undertaken. Staff had received training in the MCA and DoLS during their induction process.


No action required

Updated 8 June 2014

The service was not effective. Many staff had not received any formal supervision or annual appraisals. Staff spoken with knew the people they supported well. Staff had up to date training in place and this was focused on the needs of the people who lived at Rosedale Manor.


No action required

Updated 8 June 2014

The service was caring because staff had the right approach and people and their relatives were positive about the care and support given. One person said “I feel safe here, I have had problems and the staff here know, they are good to me.. I couldn’t get better” and other person commented “Staff give me medication at the right time and they explain what they are for which is important to me.” One relative commented “They were very pleased with the care received and that the staff have been brilliant with their relative.”


No action required

Updated 8 June 2014

The service was responsive, as people had their care and support needs assessed and kept under review and staff responded quickly when people’s needs changed. When complaints had been received these were dealt with appropriately and a system was in place to monitor these.


No action required

Updated 8 June 2014

The service was not well led. At the time of this visit a new manager was in place however, they were not registered with the Commission. Although there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs, they did not have regular supervision sessions. We saw that 20 out of 66 staff had not received formal supervision for over four months. Audits were in place to identify trends in the service, and when necessary action plans were produced and acted upon.