Archived: Rosina Gardens

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, looking at records and speaking with the relatives of people using the service, and members of staff. People using the service were unable to express their experiences verbally as a result of their complex needs.

Please read the full report for evidence that supports our summary.

Is the service safe?

During our previous inspection we found the home did not meet some of our regulations. The home did not fully record peoples consent to care and some people’s care records were incomplete. We asked the provider how they would put things right and we looked at these Regulations again during our most recent inspection. Since the previous inspection we had received anonymous information that the home was failing in some areas of service provision. We looked at the issues that had been raised and found that the evidence did not support the information given.

We found that people were cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic.

We found there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs. After the introduction of a new manager and a new roster a number of staff had left the service. Although this was not ideal we were told the service was recruiting replacements and supporting existing staff with bank workers and agency staff from one agency who were familiar with the service.

We looked at a random selection of care plans for people using the service. We found that they were person centred and reflected the individual needs of each person. We saw they covered a comprehensive range of care and healthcare needs including individual risk assessments. We found that they were regularly reviewed and up to date which supported staff to deliver safe and appropriate care. They had improved since our previous inspection and addressed our concerns.

We found that there were procedures in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. There was an on call system available to staff to obtain advice and support if needed.

The Care Quality Commission monitors operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. We found people using the service had their mental capacity assessed and recorded. We saw the home had appropriate policies and procedures in place and staff understood when applications needed to be submitted.

Is the service effective?

People’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We saw that people’s involvement with care planning and their consent were clearly recorded. These records had improved sufficiently since our last inspection and addressed our concerns.

Is the service caring?

We observed staff interactions with people at various times in our inspection. They were caring, kind and friendly. People using the service made positive comments about staff.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that care planning was person centred and recorded how people preferred their care and treatment to be delivered.

People using the service attended monthly community meetings where they could raise issues about the running of the service. Records were kept of the meetings and what actions were taken.

Is the service well led?

People using the service, representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on. There were a number of audits in place to monitor and assess service provision.

We were told that the provider was working with an external company, Careport, appointed by the Receiver. A manager had been appointed approximately four weeks before the inspection. We have been told that the intention was to make improvements and sell the service as a going concern.

We found that we had concerns around the recorded planning of care and treatment including issues of consent. However, the manager and Careport were in the process of addressing these areas of concern.

There were systems in place to safeguard vulnerable adults and to manage medicines effectively. At our last inspection we identified that staff were not being supported through training and effective supervision. We found that the provider had addressed training and supervision and further improvements were planned. The quality of service was monitored and assessed through a system of meetings, audits, feedback and policies.

At our last inspection we identified that the service did not have a registered manager as required and the provider had not notified us that there would be an absence of a manager for a continuous period of 28 days or more. Both matters had been satisfactorily addressed.

We spoke with six people who told us that they were happy with the care and treatment provided for them at Rosina Gardens. They liked the staff and one person said, 'Staff treat you like an individual and with dignity and respect.' Another person said, 'Staff are so caring. They talk to you and make sure you are ok.'

There were systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of service provision. We found that staff were not being given adequate support with training and that the service had been operating without a registered manager.