We carried out a review of the data available to us about Rotherbank on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Rotherbank, you can give feedback on this service.
Rotherbank is a family owned and run residential care home providing personal care and accommodation to 20 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 21 people in single rooms in one adapted building. The registered manager was assisted by the manager in the day to day running of the home.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were safe living at Rotherbank. The practices adopted by the home protected people from harm. Enough staff were on duty to meet the needs of people and robust recruitment practices were in place. People were relaxed in the company of staff and relatives confirmed they felt people were safe living at Rotherbank.
Staff received induction and training appropriate to their job role. People were appropriately assessed to ensure the home could meet their needs. People had access to health and medical support when they needed. Relatives were kept up to date with changes to people's health. People's capacity to consent to care and treatment was assessed, and applications were made to deprive people of their liberty to keep them safe.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the home supported this practice.
People received good care. Their preferences and wishes were respected by the management team and staff. People were treated with dignity and respect and were involved in the decision-making process about their care. Care files were person centred. Clear guidance was available about how to communicate with people effectively and independence was promoted. A range of activities were provided.
The registered manager and the manager were actively involved in the running of the home. Staff told us they were well supported by both and received regular supervision and appraisal. Team meetings took place regularly. The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities of being registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). Audits to monitor and improve the service were in place.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this home was Good, report published (10th February 2017)
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
The service had a registered manager. 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. Although the registered manager visited regularly, the day to day management of the service was carried out by the manager; in addition there was a trainee manager and a deputy manager.
People told us they felt safe and well supported. Staff had undergone safeguarding training and understood their role in relation to safeguarding and the actions they should take to keep people safe from the risk of abuse.
People’s records demonstrated that risks to them as individuals in relation to their care had been assessed and managed safely overall. However, there was a lack of clear guidance in relation to blood sugar monitoring for people’s diabetes care. Although the manager took prompt action to address this, it will take time to embed this into practice and for the provider to be able to demonstrate staff have followed the revised guidance over time.
People told us there were always staff available when needed and that they had the time to support them in the way they liked. No agency staff were used at the service to ensure people received continuity of care, which is important for people living with dementia. People were safe because the provider applied robust recruitment policies and procedures.
The registered manager had not ensured they had consistently followed good practice guidance in relation to the storage, usage and recording of people’s medicines. The manager took prompt action to rectify these issues for people. However, it will take time for the registered manager to embed the changes that were made during the inspection in relation to medicines safety.
The registered manager had not ensured that all staff followed infection control guidance in relation to their nails. This placed people at potential risk from acquiring a skin flap and some staff’s nails were not hygienic. The registered manager has taken relevant action to ensure all staff meet regulatory requirements to ensure people’s safety, however, this needs to be embedded over time.
People said that staff appeared to be well trained and knew what they were doing and supported them in the manner they liked. New staff underwent an induction to prepare them for their role and all staff received regular supervision. Staff were required to undertake a range of training identified by the provider as necessary in order to meet people’s needs. Staff were supported to undertake professional qualifications in social care.
People told us staff always sought their consent before they provided their care, medication and support. Staff were able to demonstrate how the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) applied to their day to day work with people. Where people were subject to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) legal requirements had been met.
People said the food was good. Risks to people associated with their eating and drinking had been assessed and relevant measures taken to manage these effectively for them.
Staff supported people to access a range of healthcare services to ensure they could maintain good health.
People said that the staff were caring and supported them the way they liked. Staff were observed to interact with people in a kind and caring manner. Staff received relevant information about people to enable them to form a relationship with them.
People told us they were able to do what they wished and that staff respected their wishes. Staff supported people to make day to day decisions about their care.
People told us they were treated with respect, their dignity was protected and that they were encouraged to be as independent as possible. Staff were observed to treat people with dignity and respect.
People’s care needs were assessed prior to them being accommodated. People were involved in their care planning where possible and they and their relatives were encouraged to participate in reviews of their care. People’s care was person centred to meet their individual needs. Staff had received training in dementia care.
People were supported to access and to be part of their local community. Staff ran a range of activities for people to participate in. They also ensured peoples’ needs for one to one support were met.
People and their representatives told us they could make a complaint if they needed to and it would be acted upon. People were provided with information about how to make a complaint.
People told us they thought the staff were happy and had good relationships with each other and the management. People were cared for in a service which had an open culture where staff were encouraged to speak out about any issues. Staff were observed to uphold the provider’s values in the course of their work with people.
People told us they thought the service was well led; they all spoke highly of the management and said the manager listened to them and acted upon what was said. There was a stable and well-staffed management team who were visible to people and knowledgeable about their needs. Management worked alongside staff and had a good understanding of the service.
The manager had a good overview of any incidents that took place and ensured any actions required as a result were taken for people to protect them. There was an electronic system which enabled the manager to constantly monitor that all required works and training had been completed and were up to date for people. Items identified for action in 2016 had been actioned to improve the service for people, such as the provision of a new patio. People’s views about the service had been sought and acted upon.