- Care home
Rosegarth Residential
Assessment report published 5 May 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 31 March and 1 April 2026.
Rosegarth is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 26 older people, many of whom are living with dementia and other long-term conditions. The service supported 22 people at the time of the assessment.
We last inspected this service in April 2019 and rated it good.
We carried out this assessment to confirm that the previous rating of Good remains accurate. Where we found that practice has continued to meet a good standard, we have not reported in detail on these areas and have focused our findings on any areas where improvement was needed or where exceptional practice was found.
Staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice control and freedom over their lives.
People experienced kind, respectful and person‑centred care. Interactions between staff and people were warm and unhurried, and staff knew people well, including their histories, preferences and what mattered to them. One staff member explained, “The best thing? I like coming in and seeing all the people, hearing their stories. It’s nice to see them smile.” Another staff member said, “I like to listen to [people’s] stories. I like hearing about people’s backgrounds.”
People were supported to make day‑to‑day choices about their routines, meals and activities, and staff promoted independence wherever possible. Relatives spoke positively about the caring culture and approachability of staff and leaders. One relative told us the home had “got the balance right” between keeping their family member safe while supporting independence. Staff demonstrated compassion and patience, and people appeared relaxed and comfortable in their surroundings.
Safeguarding concerns were understood and acted on appropriately, and staff worked with partners to ensure people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm while respecting their rights. Risks within the environment were identified and managed, and medicines were safely stored, administered and reviewed in line with people’s needs and preferences. People were supported to give consent, and best‑interest decisions were made where required.
The service was well led, with a shared vision focused on dignity, equality and person‑centred care. The registered manager and senior staff were visible and approachable, and staff felt supported. One staff member told us, “We have good support here, with managers. The door is always open.”
People and relatives told us they felt able to raise concerns and were confident these would be listened to and acted upon. While some improvements were still being embedded in governance and recording practices, the registered manager demonstrated openness, and a commitment to continuous improvement.
People's experience of this service
People described Rosegarth Residential as a friendly, lively place where staff knew them well and interacted with warmth and humour. During the visit we observed relaxed conversations, music playing and staff engaging people in everyday moments, which helped create a homely atmosphere.
People described feeling cared for and settled. One person told us, “I am very well looked after.” People’s rooms were well maintained and personalised. One person showed real pride in their room, which was clean, bright and personalised with plants and pictures. A relative commented, “The [staff] that work there are fantastic. They are helpful and friendly.” Staff supported people in ways that reflected their preferences and histories. For example, staff described listening to people’s stories and supporting interests such as crochet, singing hymns, and doing word searches, helping people to feel known as individuals rather than ‘tasks’.
People were offered meaningful choices throughout the day, especially around meals, snacks and routines. We observed staff offering options and checking where people wanted food items placed, for example, their gravy. Staff responded quickly to requests for alternatives, immediately offering and making a sandwich when someone didn’t want the meal offered.
Staff reassured people about any potential waiting times in a kind, familiar way, saying for example, “I’ll be back in a flash, count one to five.” This reduced people’s anxiety and helped people feel listened to.
Kindness and emotional support were evident in all daily interactions. We observed staff being patient and reassuring when supporting mobility, offering encouragement and physical reassurance. We also heard affectionate, respectful exchanges supporting relationships built on warmth and connection. For example, one person asked, “Can I have a hug” and the staff responded with, “You can have a morning hug.”
Relatives’ feedback reflected that people’s independence and control were promoted. One relative told us, “I’m fairly impressed with the home.” They described staff as having a “caring nature”. One relative explained, “[Staff have] got the balance right between oversight and independence”. Another relative highlighted how meaningful activity and community contact supported their family member’s wellbeing and purpose, providing them with anticipation and enjoyment. They described trips and outings and told us their family member would sometimes say, “Don’t come and see me I’m going out.”
Overall, people experienced care that focused on comfort, emotional reassurance, everyday choice and respectful interaction, with staff support making a positive difference to people’s day-to-day wellbeing and sense of belonging.