Archived: Rosewood

Rosewood is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to four people aged 18 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to four people.

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.

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

The service provided to people was safe. People living at the home told us they felt safe. Staff had been trained in safeguarding and had a good understanding of safeguarding policies and procedures. The risk posed to people had been assessed and suitable action had been taken to minimise the risk posed to people using the service. The administration and management of medicines was safe. There were sufficient numbers of staff working at the service and the recruitment practices in the home ensured suitable staff were recruited.

Staff had received training which was relevant to their role. People were supported to access support from health professionals when required. They could choose what they liked to eat and drink and were supported on a regular basis to participate in meaningful activities. People’s capacity had been assessed in line with current legislation and where people were lacking capacity, decisions were made in their best interests.

Staff were kind and caring and were motivated to offer person centred care. People and relatives, we spoke with told us staff were caring. Comments included “They (staff) are kind to me.” The principles of respect, dignity, compassion and, equality and diversity were embedded in the service. People were treated as equals regardless of age, gender or personal beliefs.

The service was responsive to people’s needs. Care plans were person centred to guide staff to provide consistent, high quality care and support. Daily records contained good levels of details and provided evidence of person-centred care. Where required, people were supported to make decisions about end of life care which met their individual needs and preferences.

The service was well led. People, staff and relatives spoke positively about the registered manager. Quality assurance checks were in place and identified actions to improve the service. The registered manager sought feedback from people and their relatives to improve the service. There was a positive culture throughout the service which focused on providing person centred care.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 11 April 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Rosewood is a community house supporting adults with learning disabilities and complex needs. It provides accommodation and personal care for a maximum of four adults. The service is located in a residential area in Burgess Hill. At the time of our inspection there were four people living in the service.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons.’ Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff were skilled and felt fully supported by the provider to undertake their roles. They were given training updates, supervision and development opportunities. One member of staff told us “My induction was good and taught me about autism. It gave me a good insight into the people here and their condition”. Another member of staff added, “Training is fantastic and we can access the West Sussex County Council training. My training needs are met”.

The staff we spoke with were aware of their role in safeguarding people from abuse and neglect and had received appropriate training. We saw risk assessments had been devised to help minimise and monitor risk, while encouraging people to be as independent as possible. Staff were very aware of the particular risks associated with each person’s individual needs and behaviour.

People were happy and relaxed with staff. They said they felt safe and there were sufficient staff to support them. One person told us, “Staff know I’m alright. If I’m not well, they come and help me. It makes me safe”. When staff were recruited, their employment history was checked and references obtained. Checks were also undertaken to ensure new staff were safe to work within the care sector.

Medicines were managed safely and in accordance with current regulations and guidance. There were systems in place to ensure that medicines had been stored, administered, audited and reviewed appropriately.

People’s needs had been identified, and from our observations, people’s needs were met by staff. There was a lot of emphasis on observations, especially for signs of any discomfort, as people could not always communicate their needs easily.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The staff we spoke with had a good knowledge of this.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient to maintain a balanced diet. They were supported to maintain good health and have access to healthcare services. We looked at people’s records and found they had received support from healthcare professionals when required.

There was very positive interaction between people and the staff supporting them. One person told us, “I get on well with all the staff”. Staff spoke to people with understanding, warmth and respect and gave people lots of opportunities to make choices. The staff we spoke with knew each person’s needs and preferences in great detail, and used this knowledge to provide tailored support to people.

People’s individual plans included information about who was important to them, such as their family and friends and we saw that people took part in lots of activities in the service and in the community.

The service had a complaints procedure, which was available in an ‘easy read’ version to help people to understand how to raise any concerns they might have. There was evidence that people were consulted about the service provided. We saw that house meetings took place for people to comment on their experience of the service.

The service asked other stakeholders to fill in surveys about the quality of the service and people’s feedback was included in plans for future improvements. There were effective systems in place for monitoring the quality and safety of the service. Where improvements were needed, these were addressed and followed up to ensure continuous improvement.

Accidents and incidents were recorded appropriately and steps taken to minimise the risk of similar events happening in the future. Risks associated with the environment and equipment had been identified and managed. Emergency procedures were in place in the event of fire and people knew what to do, as did the staff.

The staff members we spoke with said they really liked working in the service and that it was a good team to work in. The staff told us staff meetings took place and they were confident to discuss ideas and raise issues with managers at any time.

The staff we spoke with were attentive to the people living in the care home and promoted their welfare and independence. Staff were supported by their managers and other healthcare professionals and knew how to respond effectively in an emergency.

People had their own rooms where they could spend time on their own and staff respected their privacy and dignity. We saw that the staff were well trained to deliver appropriate care and that the provider had a process of continual assessment to monitor the quality of service provision.

There were four people living at the home at the time of the inspection. During our visit we spoke with two people who were using the service and three members of staff. People living at the home told us they liked the home and felt safe.

We made observations throughout the visit and saw people being offered choices as to what they wanted to eat and the activities they wished to participate in. People were supported to personalise their own rooms and to be as independent as possible.

We saw people being addressed in a respectful manner. We looked at people's individual support plans and observed that these were discussed with people who used the service and that these discussions were recorded. We saw that monthly audits of the service were completed by the provider ensuring that people who used the service benefit from a service that monitors the quality of care that people received.

Staff told us that they had received training in protecting adults from abuse and that they felt that they were supported and trained to carry out their roles and meet the needs of people who used the service.