You are here

Roland Residential Care Homes Good

Action is being taken against the provider of this service. Find out more

  • We have served a fixed penalty notice to Mrs Nilmarnie Gaithri Ranetunge and Mr Dushmanthe Ranetungefor failure to comply with display ratings requirement under with Regulation 20A of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Fines totalling £100 have been paid as an alternative to prosecution.


Inspection carried out on 31 October 2018

During a routine inspection

Roland Residential Care Homes – 4 Compton Road is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is a terraced house over two floors that accommodates up to seven people. At the time of the inspection there were seven people living at the home.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.


At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Risk assessments gave staff detailed guidance and ensured that risks were mitigated against in the least restrictive way. Risk assessments were reviewed and updated regularly.

People received their medicines safely and on time. People’s medicines were reviewed by healthcare professionals on a regular basis. People were encouraged to understand their medicines and why they had been prescribed.

People's mental health was supported and regularly reviewed. People were encouraged to understand their own mental health to aid well-being.

Staff had received training in safeguarding and understood how to report any concerns. People were actively encouraged to raise concerns.

Staff were recruited safely and appropriate checks conducted before commencing employment.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People could choose what they wanted to eat and drink and helped create weekly menus. People were encouraged to eat a healthy diet and this was discussed with them.

We observed caring and supportive interactions between staff and people. Staff knew people well and people appeared comfortable around the staff.

People could practice their faith and were supported by staff to attend places of worship.

There was an open culture within the home and staff felt comfortable raising issues or seeking advice from colleagues and the registered manager. People, relatives and staff were positive about how the home was run.

There was good oversight and governance of the home including regular audits for various aspects of care and the environment.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection carried out on 14 December 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place over one day on 14 December 2015 and was unannounced. At our last inspection on 04 June 2014 we found that the provider met all standards that we inspected.

Roland Residential Care Homes, 4 Compton Road is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for a maximum of seven adults with mental health needs. On the day of inspection there were seven people using the service.

The registered manager had recently left. However, a manager had been appointed and is in the process of applying for registered manager status with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

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.

People told us that they felt safe within the home and well supported by staff. We saw positive and friendly interactions between staff and people.

Staff understood people’s individual needs in relation to their care. People were treated with dignity and respect.

Procedures relating to safeguarding people from harm were in place and staff understood what to do and who to report it to if people were at risk of harm.

Staff had an understanding of the systems in place to protect people who could not make decisions and were aware of the legal requirements outlined in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). When people were not able to have input in to decisions affecting their care, there were records of MCA assessments and best interests meetings.

Care plans were person centred and reflected individual’s preferences. There were regular recorded keyworking sessions. There were focused keyworking session that looked at specific aspects of an individual’s care. People were involved in writing their care plans and risk assessments and were able to express their care needs.

People were supported to maintain a healthy lifestyle and had healthcare appointments that met their needs. Medicines were administered safely and on time.

People’s views on how the service was run were listened to. There were regular residents meetings that allowed people to have their views and opinions heard.

Staff training was updated regularly and monitored by the manager. Staff had regular supervision and annual appraisals that helped identify training needs and improve the quality of care.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. People were encouraged and supported to cook and plan their meals.

There was a complaints procedure as well as an accident and incident reporting. Where the need for improvements was identified, the manager used this as an opportunity for learning and to improve care practices where necessary.

There were regular health and safety audits and monthly medicines audits. These allowed the provider to ensure that issues were identified and addressed.

There were systems in place to identify maintenance issues. Staff were aware of how to report and follow up maintenance.

There was an open atmosphere within the home. The management encouraged a culture of learning and staff development.

Inspection carried out on 4 June 2014

During a routine inspection

A single inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, is the service effective, is the service caring, is the service responsive, is the service well led?

During the inspection we spoke with four people who used the service. All of them had mental healthcare needs.

We observed the care provided and the interaction between staff and people who used the service. We spoke with three care staff, the manager and one of the registered providers.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

The home was clean and well furnished. Health and Safety checks had been carried out on the premises to ensure that any risks to people were identified and minimised.

With one exception, people told us that they were well treated. Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff had been provided with safeguarding training. They were aware of action to take in response to safeguarding incidents or allegations. The home had suitable arrangements for the administration of medication.

The Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which applies to care homes. Staff had an understanding of the implications of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and Mental Capacity Act 2005. The manager told us that they were aware of the procedures to follow for making applications for deprivation of liberty and this had been done when needed. This was evidenced in the care records we examined.

Is the service effective?

Feedback from people who used the service and from correspondence received from a relative and a healthcare professional indicated that the service was effective and responsive to the needs of people. People�s care needs had been assessed with the help of their relatives and representatives. Their choices and preferences were documented and staff we spoke with were aware of these. This meant that staff could respond to people effectively. Care plans had been prepared and these were up to date and had been regularly reviewed. There was evidence that people�s medical needs had been attended to by healthcare professionals such as their psychiatrists, hospital consultants and the dietician. Staff were knowledgeable regarding how to care for people with certain medical and behavioural needs and gain their co-operation. This meant that potential problems and risks could be minimised or resolved.

Is the service caring?

Staff were aware that all people who used the service should be treated with respect and dignity. We saw correspondence from a relative and a healthcare professional which complimented staff for being caring towards people who used the service. We saw that staff were welcoming and greeted people in a friendly manner. People were able to approach staff freely and were at ease with staff. Staff informed us that they encouraged people to be as independent as possible. We noted that people went into the kitchen and helped themselves to breakfast and made drinks. People informed us that there were meetings where they could make suggestions regarding the services provided and staff listened to them.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that staff were attentive towards people and responded promptly when people asked for assistance. Individual one to one sessions had been scheduled for people with their keyworkers. The manager explained that these sessions were aimed at ensuring that people�s personal care needs were responded to. The manager could provide us with examples of what they did in response to suggestions made such as having a snooker table and going on holiday to a chosen destination. We noted that the bedrooms of people had been personalised with pictures and ornaments they liked. When we needed information regarding the care provided and the management of the home, this was promptly provided.

Is the service well-led?

The manager and one of the registered providers who were present were knowledgeable regarding their roles and responsibilities. There were arrangements for monitoring the quality of care provided. A satisfaction survey had been carried out. The results indicated that people who used the service, their relatives and professionals involved in their care were satisfied with the care provided. Monthly monitoring visits had been done by one of the registered providers to check on the condition of the home and the care of people. Regular checks on medication arrangements, care documentation and the premises had been carried out by the manager.

Inspection carried out on 18 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two people and read two care plans. One person told us that it was "all right" and "they don't tell you what to do." We found that people were asked for their consent. Where people were unable to give consent because they could not understand the provider had acted properly by acting in their best interest.

We saw that people were treated with dignity and respect and were helped and encouraged to eat. People had a choice about the food they ate. People�s likes and dislikes were noted on menus so staff prepared and offered alternative choices.

The home was clean and the provider had procedures in place to ensure that people were supported in a healthy environment.

Appropriate checks were made on staff before they started work. There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place.

Where people had complaints or concerns these were listened to and acted upon.

Inspection carried out on 7 March 2013

During a routine inspection

When we inspected 4 Compton Road, we talked with people who use the service who told us that they were happy living in the home, felt supported by staff and could talk to them. They told us that they felt safe and were positive about the variety of activities available within the service and in the community.

We were told by people of the improvement that they had experienced in their life as a result of living in the service. One person commented that � it is the best place that I have ever lived.� We observed positive interactions between staff and people using the service throughout the day.

From the records we looked at and from discussion with staff, we were confident that there were processes in place to assess and review the care and support provided for people on a regular basis. We talked with staff who had knowledge and understanding of the individual needs of the people using the service and the processes and procedures to ensure that their safety and protection was maintained.

We observed comments in the annual audit from relatives and professionals who said they were pleased with the care being provided.

We observed staff supporting people using the service in a professional and respectful way which demonstrated that they had a good understanding of their individual requirements.