You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 17 February 2017

Roseacre is a care home which provides accommodation and personal care for a maximum of 40 older people. The service has a specialist unit which accommodates up to ten people living with dementia. The service does not provide nursing care and the provider was in the process of removing the regulated activities associated with nursing care. There were 30 people using the service at the time of our inspection.

The inspection took place on 17 January 2017 and was unannounced.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

Roseacre was last inspected on 29 July 2014 when we had no concerns.

We made one recommendation as a result of this inspection. As such we asked the provider to consider adopting a more strategic oversight of falls so as to be more readily able to identify any themes or trends across the service.

Roseacre was a friendly and inclusive service that provided support to people in a ‘Home from home environment.’ Many people had lived at the service for a number of years and had built friendships and new lives within the service.

The service was well-led and people’s needs were met by a team of staff who worked effectively together. Sufficient staffing levels were maintained. Where temporary staff were used to cover staff vacancies, these were regular to the service and therefore they too had a good knowledge about people’s needs and preferences. The appropriate recruitment and ongoing monitoring and appraisal of staff had ensured that only suitable staff worked at the service.

Staff received training and support from the management team in order to deliver their roles and responsibilities in line with best practice. The leadership team had fostered an open culture and coached staff to deliver high standards of care.

The service had good systems in place to identify and manage risks to people and to maintain the safety of the service as a whole. People were further protected from the risk of abuse or avoidable harm, because staff understood their role in safeguarding them.

People had positive relationships with staff who took steps to ensure care was provided in a way that protected their privacy and dignity. People were encouraged and supported to both maintain and develop their independence and spend their time doing things that were meaningful to them.

People were actively involved in making decisions about their care and these choices were effectively communicated and respected by staff. Staff ensured appropriate consent was gained from people and delivered care in the lest restrictive way.

Each person was appropriately assessed and had an individualised plan of care which outlined how their needs would be met. People were involved at each stage of planning their care to ensure staff provided support in a way that met their needs, preferences and expectations.

People were supported to maintain good health and there were systems in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed. People had choice and control over their meals and were effectively supported to maintain a healthy and balanced diet.

People and their representatives were able to share their feelings and staff ensured that when people raised issues that they were listened to and people’s opinions were valued. Roseacre had an active residents’ group who were routinely consulted about proposed changes and developments for the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 17 February 2017

The service was safe.

People were protected from the risk of abuse, avoidable harm or discrimination because staff understood their roles and responsibilities in protecting them.

Risks to people were appropriately identified and managed.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs. Appropriate checks were undertaken to ensure only suitable staff were employed.

There were systems in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.

Effective

Good

Updated 17 February 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. Training and support were provided to ensure care staff undertook their roles and responsibilities in line with best practice.

Gaining consent from people was something staff did automatically and staff understood the importance of providing care in the least restrictive way.

People had choice and control over their meals and were supported to maintain good hydration and a balanced diet.

Staff worked in partnership with other health care professionals to help keep people healthy and well.

Caring

Good

Updated 17 February 2017

The service was caring.

The atmosphere at Roseacre was friendly and welcoming. People had good relationships with the staff that supported them.

Staff respected people’s privacy and promoted their dignity at all times.

People were actively involved in making decisions about their care and staff understood the importance of respecting supporting them to live their lives as they wished.

Responsive

Good

Updated 17 February 2017

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their changing needs.

People had regular opportunities to engage in activities and outings that were meaningful to them.

People were confident about expressing their feelings. The management team ensured that if people raised issues that they were listened to and acted upon.

Well-led

Good

Updated 17 February 2017

The service was well-led.

The culture within the service was open and positive and care was provided in a way which ensured the person was always at the centre.

People benefitted from leadership team who were committed to maintaining the quality and the safe running of the service.

There were systems in place to gather feedback from interested parties and involve people in the running of the service.