Rosegarth Residential

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Staff did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them

People and their relatives were involved in how risks were managed. The service promoted individual choice, including respecting refusals of care. However, some key risks were not consistently assessed, documented or mitigated against (including textured diets and repositioning/pressure relief). One relative told us, “They sometimes update us but it can be hit and miss.” However, we found no impact to people and the registered manager took immediate action to review and rectify these inconsistencies.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care

The provider did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They did not always make sure staff received effective support,supervision and development. They did not always work together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

People generally received calm and unhurried support from staff who were trained. However, staff told us staffing levels were low at peak times and observations reflected this at one point during the day. Relatives’ comments about staffing were mixed and included, “I feel there are enough, maybe one or two more would be helpful”, “When I have visited they needed more staff to deal with all the needs” and “There are definitely less at weekends.” One staff member told us, “Mornings can be really busy.” Records showed that night shifts were, on occasion, staffed by individuals who did not have the appropriate training. We discussed this with the registered manager who confirmed on-call arrangements were in place. However, this was not effective in reducing this risk. We found no impact to people, and following the inspection the registered manager altered future rotas to ensure appropriately trained staff were always on shift.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.