You are here

Rosegarth Residential Requires improvement

We are carrying out checks at Rosegarth Residential. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Reports


Inspection carried out on 9 January 2019

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 9, 10 and 14 January 2019 and was unannounced.

Rosegarth Residential is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service is registered to provide accommodation and care for up to 26 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 17 people living at the service.

At the last comprehensive inspection, completed in May 2018, we found that there were six breaches of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These related to person-centred care, the safe delivery of care and treatment, premises and equipment, staffing, recruitment and the overall oversight and governance of the service. The overall rating for the service at that time was 'inadequate' and the service was placed in Special Measures. We completed a focused inspection in August 2018 and looked at the safe and well-led domains only. At that inspection we found two continued breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, the safe delivery of care and treatment and the overall oversight and governance of the service. We also identified a new breach of Regulation 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, Need for consent. The service continued to be rated ‘inadequate’ overall at that time, and it remained in special measures.

This service has been in Special Measures. Services that are in Special Measures are kept under review and inspected again within six months. We expect services to make significant improvements within this timeframe. During this inspection the service demonstrated to us that improvements have been made and is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, this service is now out of Special Measures.

At this inspection we found that there were five breaches of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These related to the safe delivery of care and treatment, need for consent, competent and skilled staff, the overall oversight and governance of the service and a failure to display the rating from our previous inspection. We also identified one breach of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 related the provider’s failure to notify the Commission of all notifiable incidents.

The service is required to have a registered manager in post. 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. The service has had three new managers since January 2018. The most recent manager had started the process of registering with CQC.

A caring culture was demonstrated by some staff throughout the inspection. However, some staff lacked knowledge about people and respect for people was not always evidenced through service delivery.

Not all risk assessments in place were effective at mitigating risks. Environmental risk assessments were out of date and required reviewing to ensure they were fit for purpose. Improvements in fire safety were required to ensure people were safe. Additional fire training was being sought by the area manager.

Staff received an effective induction which included regular contact with the provider. Training of staff still required improvement to ensure that staff were knowledgeable in the needs of people using the service. Some staff lacked knowledge regarding people’s specific needs despite processes in place to address this.

People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not support them in the least restrict

Inspection carried out on 7 August 2018

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

This inspection took place on 7 August 2018 and was unannounced.

Rosegarth Residential is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service is registered to provide accommodation and care for up to 26 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 18 people living at the service.

At the last inspection, completed in May 2018, we found that there were six breaches of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These related to person centred care, the safe delivery of care and treatment, premises and equipment, staffing, recruitment and the overall oversight and governance of the service. The overall rating for this service was 'Inadequate' and the service was in 'Special measures'.

This report only covers our findings in relation to the safe and well-led domains. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Rosegarth Residential on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

At this inspection we found that there were three breaches of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These related to the safe delivery of care and treatment, need for consent and the overall oversight and governance of the service.

The service is required to have a registered manager in post. 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. The service had a new manager in post since January 2018, however the previous manager is yet to deregister and the new manager had not started the process of registering with CQC.

Despite the service being rated as inadequate at the last comprehensive inspection the provider had failed to deliver the required improvements to ensure people receive safe care and treatment in line with the fundamental standards.

The service failed to accurately assess the risk to people and ensure that measures were in place to reduce and mitigate this risk. People were exposed to increased risks within the service due to inadequate care provided. People failed to receive adequate support in relation to their tissue viability needs.

People in receipt of covert medicines did not have the required plans in place. Decisions regarding the administration of covert medicines and the use of monitoring restrictions had not been agreed in line with the Mental Capacity Act and through best interest’s meetings.

The systems which the provider had in place to assess the experience of people receiving care had not identified the concerns we observed during our inspection. There had been a failure to rectify the failings identified during our last inspection and this meant people continued to receive inadequate care.

The overall rating for this service remains 'Inadequate' and the service is therefore still in 'Special measures'. Services in special measures will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate enforcement action, will be inspected again within six months. The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.

If not enough improvement is made within this timeframe and there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. This service will continue to be kept under review

Inspection carried out on 3 May 2018

During a routine inspection

Rosegarth Residential is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 26 older people, including those with dementia related conditions. It is located in the seaside town of Bridlington, in East Yorkshire. At the time of our inspection there were 19 people living at the home.

This inspection took place on the 3 and 14 May 2018. Both days were unannounced. The inspection was responsive in part due to a matter being investigated by the local authority safeguarding team.

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service is therefore in ‘special measures’.

Services in special measures will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, will be inspected again within six months.

The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.

If not enough improvement is made within this timeframe so that there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. This service will continue to be kept under review and, if needed, could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement so there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action to prevent the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration.

For adult social care services the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it and it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.

The service is required to have a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with 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. At the time of the inspection there was a manager in place but they had not registered with the CQC.

Measures required to reduce the risk of harm to people were not always in place. This included exposing people to environmental risks around the building and its grounds. Infection control measures were not sufficient to prevent the risk to people of infections spreading.

Medicine procedures and systems were in place however some improvement was required to ensure that medicine practices were safe. Staff had a basic understanding of how to safeguard people from abuse.

Recruitment processes were in place but these needed to be more robust.

Staff aimed to deliver a good standard of care that was caring. Some staff demonstrated knowledge of people and this helped them to provide some person-centred care. However, staff were not sufficiently trained or supported to meet the needs of the people they were supporting.

Communication between staff and people using the service was not always appropriate or in line with best practice.

Care plans demonstrated that the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been applied. Monitoring of DoLS applications ne

Inspection carried out on 22 June 2017

During a routine inspection

Rosegarth Residential is a care home for up to 26 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. The home is situated in Bridlington, a seaside town in the East Riding of Yorkshire. Bedrooms are located on the ground, first and second floors and there is a passenger lift to reach the first and second floors. On the day of the inspection there were 19 people living at the home.

At the last inspection in March 2015, the service was rated as Good. At this inspection we found that the service remained Good.

There continued to be sufficient numbers of staff employed to make sure people received the support they needed, and those staff had been safely recruited. People told us they felt safe living at the home.

Staff had continued to receive appropriate training to give them the knowledge and skills they required to carry out their roles. This included training on how to protect people from the risk of harm.

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

Staff were kind, caring and patient. They respected people’s privacy and dignity and encouraged them to be as independent as possible.

Care planning described the person and the level of support they required. Care plans were in the process of being re-designed and were an accurate record of the person and their care needs.

Activities were provided for people, including walks with staff into the town and on to the seafront.

People understood how to express any concerns or complaints and were given the opportunity to feedback their views of the service provided.

The manager had submitted their application for registration to the Care Quality Commission. Staff and relatives reported that the service was well managed.

The manager carried out audits to ensure people were receiving the care and support that they required, and to monitor that staff were following the policies, procedures and systems in place.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection carried out on 29 April 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 29 April 2015 and was unannounced. We previously visited the service on 17 November 2013 and we found that the registered provider met the regulations we assessed.

The service is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 26 older people, some of whom may have dementia or mental health problems. On the day of the inspection there were 15 people living at the home; fourteen people lived there permanently and one person was having respite care. The home is located in Bridlington, a seaside town in the East Riding of Yorkshire. It is close to the sea front, to local amenities and on good transport routes.

The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection there was a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC); they had been registered since 29 April 2014 (although they had previously been registered to manage Rosegarth Residential and another service belonging to the same provider). 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.

People told us that they felt safe living at Rosegarth Residential. Staff had completed training on safeguarding adults from abuse and were able to describe to us the action they would take if they had concerns about someone’s safety. They said that they were confident all staff would recognise and report any incidents or allegations of abuse and that concerns would be dealt with effectively by managers.

We observed good interactions between people who lived at the home and staff on the day of the inspection. People told us that staff were caring and compassionate and this was supported by the relatives and health / social care professionals who we spoke with.

People who lived at the home, relatives and social care professionals told us that staff were effective and skilled. Staff confirmed that they received induction training when they were new in post and told us that they were happy with the training provided for them.

People were supported to make their own decisions and when they were not able to do so, meetings were held to ensure that decisions were made in the person’s best interests. If it was considered that people were being deprived of their liberty, the correct authorisations had been applied for.

Medicines were administered safely by staff and the arrangements for ordering, storage and recording were robust.

We saw that there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet the needs of people who lived at the home and to enable them to spend one to one time with people. New staff had been employed following the home’s recruitment and selection policies to ensure that only people considered suitable to work with vulnerable people had been employed.

People’s nutritional needs had been assessed and people told us that they were satisfied with the meals provided at the home. People told us that they had ample choice and their special diets were catered for.

There were systems in place to seek feedback from people who lived at the home, relatives, health and social care professionals and staff. People’s comments and complaints were responded to appropriately.

People who lived at the home, relatives and staff told us that the home was well managed. The quality audits undertaken by the registered manager were designed to identify any areas of concern or areas that were unsafe, and there were systems in place to ensure that managers and staff reflected on practice and made any necessary improvements.

Inspection carried out on 7 November 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of the inspection we spoke with two people who lived at the home, the regional manager and a senior care worker.

People who lived at the home told us that they were satisfied with the support they received. We saw that there were care plans in place and that these had been reviewed regularly to ensure that they contained up to date information. We observed that medication was administered in a safe way by staff who had received appropriate training.

Special diets were catered for and the people who we spoke with praised the standard of the meals provided. One person said, "The meals here are lovely". Quality assurance information evidenced that people who lived at the home were consulted about various aspects of their care to ensure that their needs were being met.

Staff had received training on topics that helped them to provide the care and support needed by people who lived at the home. However, the training matrix was not up to date so there was no full record of staff's training achievements and requirements.

Quality monitoring at the home had been increased and this included various audits that had been implemented to measure how systems were being adhered to by staff and to identify what improvements needed to be made.

Inspection carried out on 17 May 2013

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

At the last inspection of the home on 14 February 2013 we had made a compliance action in respect of this outcome. We found that some people had started work prior to proper safety checks being in place and before induction training had been completed.

At this inspection we found that improvements had been made in recruitment practices. Two written references and a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check had been obtained prior to people commencing work at the home.

New employees had provided the home with training certificates to evidence training they had undertaken at previous places of employment. We also found that new staff had completed appropriate induction or refresher training when they had first started to work at the home to ensure that they had the skills needed to care for or support the people who lived there.

Inspection carried out on 14 February 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with one person who lived at the home at length and chatted to other people. We also spoke with the registered manager and two members of staff to assist us in reaching a decision about compliance.

We found that people had care needs assessments in place that identified the support they required from staff and their ability to make decisions about their day to day lives. When people lacked the capacity to make decisions about important aspects of their life, a best interest meeting had been held to assist them with decision making.

We saw that care plans recorded information that would assist staff to support people in the way they wished to be supported and we observed on the day of the inspection that care was provided in a sensitive manner. Care plans were reviewed and updated on a regular basis and this included consultation with health care professionals.

Staff had undertaken training on safeguarding adults from abuse and displayed an understanding of different types of abuse. People told us that they felt safe living at the home.

There were sufficient staff on duty but we were concerned that some staff had not been employed using robust recruitment procedures and that this left people who lived at the home at risk of harm.

People had been made aware of the complaints procedure and told us who they would speak to if they had a complaint.

We were concerned that we had not been informed of the imminent absence of the registered manager.

Inspection carried out on 27 January 2012

During a routine inspection

People told us that they were happy living in the home, they felt safe and well supported.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)