You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Rosekeys. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 7 March 2017

This inspection took place on 14 December 2016 and was unannounced. Rosekeys provides accommodation, and personal care for up to 13 people. On the day of our inspection 10 people were using the service who had a variety of needs associated with a learning disability or an autism spectrum disorder.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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

Staff had a good understanding of their role and responsibilities in protecting people from harm or abuse and followed correct procedures in relation to raising concerns. The registered manager shared information with the Care Quality Commission and the local authority when needed. Risks to people’s safety were clearly identified and assessed, and measures were in place to ensure people were safe. People received their medicines as prescribed and the management of medicines was safe.

The staffing levels were sufficient to support people’s needs and, although the service did use agency staff at times, the staff were well supported and underwent appropriate employment checks. Staff received regular and appropriate training and supervision to assist them in their roles.

People were encouraged to make independent decisions and staff were aware of legislation to protect people who lacked capacity when decisions were made in their best interests. We also found staff were aware of the principles within the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and had not deprived people of their liberty without applying for the required authorisation.

People’s health needs were managed with referrals made to health care professionals when required. People were protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition. Specialist diets were provided if needed.

People who used the service, or their representatives, were encouraged to contribute to the planning of their care, and were treated in a caring and respectful manner by relaxed and considerate staff.

People’s care plans contained up to date, relevant information and they received care from staff who understood their care needs. People who used the service or their representatives felt they could report any concerns to the management team and felt they would be taken seriously.

The registered manager ensured there were systems in place to continually monitor the quality of service provision.

Inspection areas



Updated 7 March 2017

The service was safe.

People were safe as the provider had systems in place to recognise and respond to allegations of abuse.

People received their medicines as prescribed and medicines were managed safely.

There was enough staff to meet people’s needs and staff were able to respond to people’s needs in a timely manner.



Updated 7 March 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who had received training and supervision to ensure they could perform their roles and responsibilities effectively.

People were supported to make independent decisions and procedures were in place to protect people who lacked capacity to make decisions.

People were supported to maintain a nutritionally balanced diet and fluid intake and their health was effectively monitored.



Updated 7 March 2017

The service was caring.

People’s choices, likes and dislikes were respected and people were treated in a kind and caring manner.

People’s privacy and dignity was supported and staff were aware of the importance of promoting people’s independence.



Updated 7 March 2017

People were supported to make complaints and raise concerns with the management team.

People living at the home, or those acting on their behalf, were involved in the planning of their care and staff had the necessary information to promote people’s well-being.

People were supported to pursue a varied range of social activities within the home and the broader community.



Updated 7 March 2017

The service was well led.

People felt the management team were approachable and their opinions were taken into consideration. Staff felt they received a good level of support and could contribute to the running of the service.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.