During an assessment under our new approach
Rossendale House Care Home is a residential care home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to 66 older people, younger adults, people with physical disabilities and people living with dementia. At the time of our assessment there were 66 people living at this service. We assessed all quality statements under the five key questions of Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-Led. We undertook site visits on 21 and 22 July 2026 and reviewed evidence remotely. This is the first rating for this newly registered service.
Focus was placed on falls management to help reduce the number of falls that had been occurring and people moved between services safely including when they required hospital admissions. Safeguarding processes were in place and staff had training in this area. Risks to people were managed well and the environment people lived in was safe although some concerns were raised in relation to people’s laundry. Staff were recruited safely; however, concerns were raised in relation to staffing levels and gaps in staff knowledge in some areas. We did however see evidence of staff undertaking various training courses to enhance their knowledge including new face 2 face training. Medicines were not always being managed safely.
People’s care plans were person-centred, and referrals were being made to healthcare professionals as appropriate. People were encouraged to live healthy lifestyles through regular exercise and people were always offered and shown a choice of meals on offer as well as snacks being available to people throughout the day. Partner agencies told us the service worked well with them and people’s consent was always sought.
Staff treated people with kindness, compassion and dignity and staff told us they felt people were treated well. The registered manager undertakes spot checks to ensure good care was always being delivered, and it was clear staff knew people very well. Care plans and life history books contained extensive information on people’s past and how a person liked to spend their time to ensure staff knew people’s preferences. Relatives were encouraged to visit and there was a wide range of activities available for people. Staff wellbeing was a priority, and staff were encouraged to develop their skills.
Partner agencies told us the service was proactive and staff felt they worked well as a team. People’s communication needs had been thought of, and people’s personal information was kept secured. The building was purpose built and benefited from bright, wide and airy corridors as well as large bedrooms. There was however a lack of signage for those living with dementia. We saw evidence complaints were being responded to and feedback from people and relatives was sought. Some nurse call bells were sounding for a while, and we noted people were waiting for long periods at the dining table for staff to assist them.
There was a good culture at this service and staff were encouraged to take on more responsibilities and extra training. Staff were encouraged to speak freely without discrimination and team meetings as well as staff surveys encouraged open and honest conversations. Staff received support through supervisions and reasonable adjustments were made where necessary. Staff praised the leaders of this service and felt they were skilled and approachable. People were supported into the community and partner agencies told us the service worked well with them through shared learning. A strong focus was put on learning from events to ensure improvements were made and sustained. We did however identify concerns relating to staffing levels that had not been actioned prior to our assessment. Assurances have since been made and measures put in place to reduce this risk.