You are here

Archived: Rosewood Lodge Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 31 October 2017

This inspection took place on 28 September 2017 and was unannounced. At our last inspection in 2 August 2016, we rated the service as Requires Improvement because we found shortfalls in safety and management. At this inspection, we found that improvements had been made and we have now rated the service as Good.

Rosewood Lodge is registered to provide care and accommodation for 19 older people some of whom may have dementia care needs. On the day of our visit, 19 people were using the service. The service offered support with end of life care. However, at the time of our inspection, there was no one who required this type of care.

There was 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.

The premises were clean. Regular maintenance and health and safety checks were carried out. Risk assessments were in place for people to ensure potential risks to them were known and managed, such as falls and any health care needs.

People and relatives commented the service was a safe place. People received their medicines on time from staff that were trained to administer them.

There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs. The provider had made changes to the staffing structure to ensure there was suitable numbers of staff available at all times. Staff on duty had received training to ensure they communicated with people effectively and had the skills to respond to their needs.

The provider carried out the appropriate checks on all new employees before they started working at the service.

The provider involved staff, people and relatives in the development of the service. There was a relaxed atmosphere and people felt comfortable with staff and the management team.

Staff received training in safeguarding people and were able to describe the actions they would take if they had any concerns about possible abuse. The provider also had a whistleblowing policy which staff were aware of and said they were confident they could use.

Staff ensured people had access to appropriate healthcare when needed and their nutritional needs were met. The provider had systems in place to support people who lacked capacity to make decisions for themselves. Staff had an understanding of how to support people who lacked capacity and received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff received regular support through supervision meetings with the registered manager. Their work performances were reviewed on a yearly basis.

People were treated with dignity and their choices were respected. Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible.

People received personalised care and support, to ensure their individual needs were met. They were encouraged to participate in activities or pursue any hobbies and interests.

People and relatives were able to make complaints or raise concerns and have them investigated. Their feedback was obtained through questionnaires and surveys.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided to people. Audits and checks were carried out by the registered manager to ensure the service was safe for people and staff.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 31 October 2017

The service was safe. There were enough staff on duty during the day and at night. The premises were clean.

Risks to people were assessed and managed to keep them safe.

The provider had an effective recruitment and selection processes in place.

Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely by trained staff.

Effective

Good

Updated 31 October 2017

The service was effective. People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs. Staff monitored people�s health and wellbeing

Staff received training to help them in their roles. They were supported through regular one to one meetings.

Staff had knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and correct procedures were followed.

Caring

Good

Updated 31 October 2017

The service was caring. Staff knew people well and they provided care with dignity and respect.

People and relatives were involved in their care planning.

People were treated with kindness and equality. Their independence was promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 31 October 2017

The service was responsive. People received personalised care and their needs were assessed and reviewed.

People were encouraged to participate in activities and interests of their choice.

People and their relatives felt confident any complaints and concerns would be addressed by the management team.

Well-led

Good

Updated 31 October 2017

The service was well led. People, relatives and staff felt the service was managed well. We made a recommendation about displaying information more appropriately.

Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the service and the effectiveness of systems in place. The views of people and relatives were obtained through questionnaires and surveys.

The management team was available to staff for advice and support.