Rosebery House

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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us they were happy with the service. They said staff understood their needs and treated them with dignity and kindness.

People said they received kind and caring support. They described staff as friendly, respectful and helpful. During our visit, we saw warm and positive interactions. Staff paid attention to what people needed and were patient and understanding.

People said they felt listened to. Staff asked them about their choices and supported them to stay as independent as possible. One person said, “It’s all right living here, it’s like Butlins. I feel safe.” Another said, “The staff are good at listening to you and lifting you when you are down.” A relative told us, “Where there’s a problem, we always work together to find a solution.”

People told us they felt safe and believed staff would help them quickly if needed. They said they were comfortable speaking up if they had concerns and felt these would be taken seriously.

People said they could personalise their rooms and make them feel like home. Staff supported them to stay in touch with family and friends and encouraged them to stay involved in the local community.

People’s support plans included clear information about their needs, preferences and daily routines. Care plans were reviewed regularly to keep them up to date. People and their relatives said they were involved in these reviews and felt their views mattered.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care in which staff managed and monitored safety. They ensured continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. This included completing an initial needs assessment at the start of the service and developing personalised care plans to share important information when required.

Staff told us they received information on how to support people who were new to the service, and they said care plans were updated regularly when needs changed. They gave examples of individuals who had been referred to specialist teams for additional support, such as the mental health team when people experienced increased anxieties. When healthcare professionals provided advice about people’s care, staff incorporated this into care plans and risk assessments.

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.

Safeguarding systems and processes were in place to identify, report and investigate, allegations of abuse.

Staff received training and had access to relevant information and guidance about protecting people from harm. Staff understood what was meant by abuse and were confident reporting safeguarding concerns. The service maintained a safeguarding tracker to record, monitor, and evidence the outcomes of referrals, and lessons learned from investigations were shared with staff to improve practice.

Staff demonstrated they were highly skilled at recognising when people felt unsafe and were confident when challenging and reporting unsafe practice. They knew from people's body language and actions if a person felt unsafe or were worried about something. Staff told us they would give people time to talk and recognise if there were any changes in their behaviour that they felt might need to be reported due to safeguarding concerns.

We observed staff speaking to people in a respectful manner and including them in decisions. We saw staff responded promptly when people were feeling anxious or needed support.

People were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Assessments showed people had capacity to make their own decisions about their care and daily lives. Staff respected people’s choices and encouraged independence. No one using the service was subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisation at the time of the inspection, and we found no evidence of any restrictive practices that could amount to an unauthorised deprivation of liberty.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People were encouraged and supported to take positive risks, which enabled them to live as full and unrestricted a life as possible. Staff we spoke with were aware of each person’s individual risks and explained how they used specific techniques to reduce the likelihood of harm. Some people required support to manage difficult or distressed behaviours, and staff had received training and clear guidance to help them do this safely.

Risk assessments addressed people’s diverse needs, including their mental health, addiction, self‑care needs and chosen lifestyles. They promoted independence by allowing people as much freedom as possible while maintaining safety. Staff evaluated and reviewed these assessments regularly to ensure they remained up to date, accurate and relevant to each person’s current circumstances.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. However, the building was ‘tired’ in places and not to a consistently high standard. For example, kitchens needed replacement and posed an infection control risk. The provider told us they had already invested in some improvements but were aware of the improvements still needed and were considering their refurbishment options.

Staff completed regular checks on the premises and equipment to ensure a safe environment. External contractors carried out scheduled checks on gas, electrical systems and fire safety, which further supported the provider’s approach to managing environmental risks effectively.

People told us they liked their home and were free to decorate their rooms as they wished. One person said, “I like living here, but I would like new carpets, some pictures on the wall, and a CD player that works.” A staff member commented, “It needs a new kitchen.” We shared these concerns with the registered provider, who confirmed that a plan was already in place to update the kitchens and make the environment more homely.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Safe recruitment processes were used in line with the provider's recruitment policy to ensure staff employed were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Records confirmed a range of checks including application, interview, and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were conducted before staff started working at the service. However, we found gaps in 1 recruitment record. The service manager was responsive to the concerns raised and immediate action was taken for the records identified and a review of other records was to be completed.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs when they required support or company. Staffing levels supported people’s needs while still promoting their independence. Although staff were not present during the evening or overnight, there was a responsive on‑call system so staff could be contacted at any time. People did not raise concerns about staffing levels. The provider told us that staffing arrangements were monitored continuously and adjusted according to people’s assessed needs.

Staff told us they received a thorough and in-depth induction prior to working with people. They completed a range of training to give them the skills and knowledge to support people, this included completing qualifications in health and social care. One staff member said, “Coming to work here is the best thing I have ever done.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Infection control systems were in place. Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of infection prevention and control procedures. They had completed current training and understood the correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the actions required in the event of an outbreak.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

Staff received regular training and competency assessments on the administration of medicines to ensure they were safely administering medicines. Staff told us they were supported by their managers and received training that allowed them to safely carry out their role. Staff could describe how they would follow up urgent queries and access urgent medicines.

Where people received ‘as required’ (PRN) medicines, detailed protocols were in place to ensure staff were clear on when these medicines should be administered.

Policies and procedures for the safe management of medicines were in place. The provider had effective audits in place to check medicines had been administered as and when prescribed.