You are here

Archived: Rosemont Care Limited t/a Rosemont Care Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 10 May 2017

This comprehensive inspection took place on 7 March 2017. The registered provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the service provides a domiciliary care service in people’s own homes and we needed to be sure that someone would be available to assist with the inspection.

We last inspected the service in July 2015 and found that the service required improvement because there were breaches in legal requirements. We carried out a focussed inspection in May 2016 to check that the service had followed their action plan and we confirmed that they now met legal requirements.

Rosemont Care Limited delivers personal care and reablement support to people in their own homes within the London Borough of Havering and some areas of Barking and Dagenham. At the time of our inspection, approximately 142 people were using the service. The service was employing 63 care workers who visited people living in the community.

A reablement service aims to provide short term support to people in order for them to stay independent in their own home by regaining daily living skills and improving their quality of life often following a stay in hospital.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered care homes, 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.

We found that systems were in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff were able to identify different types of abuse and knew how to report any concerns. Where visits to people were missed by staff and a person placed at risk, disciplinary action was taken by the provider.

People received care at home from staff who understood their needs. People had their individual risks assessed and staff were aware of plans to manage the risks. However, we found that where people had specific health conditions, risk assessments did not contain sufficient information for staff to help keep people safe.

When required, staff administered people’s medicines and had received the appropriate training to do this. The provider had sufficient numbers of staff available to provide support to people. Staff had been recruited following appropriate checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service.

Staff received training in a number of topics that were important for them to be able to carry out their roles. They told us that they received support and encouragement from the registered manager and were provided opportunities to develop. Staff were able to raise any concerns and were confident that they would be addressed.

People were treated with privacy and dignity. They were listened to by staff and were involved in making decisions about their care and support. People were supported to meet their nutritional needs. They were registered with health care professionals and staff contacted them in emergencies.

People told us they received support from staff who understood their needs. Care plans were personalised and provided staff with sufficient information about each person’s individual preferences.

A complaints procedure was in place. People and their relatives were able to make complaints, express their views and give feedback about their care. They told us they could raise any issues and that action would be taken by the registered manager.

The management team was committed to developing the service and monitoring the quality of care provided to people. They ensured that regular checks and audits were carried out and looked at where improvements could be made. We have recommended that guidance on people's health conditions is monitored as part of quality assurance checks.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action w

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 10 May 2017

The service was not always safe. Risk assessments did not contain sufficient information on people�s health conditions for staff to help keep people safe.

Staff understood how to identify potential abuse and were aware of their responsibilities to report any concerns to the registered manager or to the local authority.

Staffing levels were sufficient to ensure people received support to meet their needs.

The provider had effective recruitment procedures to make safe recruitment decisions when employing new staff.

People received their medicines safely when required and staff received training in how to do this.

Effective

Good

Updated 10 May 2017

The service was effective. Staff received appropriate inductions, training, support and supervision. Their performance and development needs were monitored.

Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. People�s capacity to make decisions was recorded and staff acted in their best interest.

People had access to health professionals to ensure their health needs were monitored.

Staff ensured people had their nutritional requirements met and assisted with providing people food and drink.

Caring

Good

Updated 10 May 2017

The service was caring. People were happy with the support they received from staff.

Staff were familiar with people�s care and support needs. Staff had developed caring relationships with the people they supported and promoted their independence.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and their families were also involved.

Responsive

Good

Updated 10 May 2017

The service was responsive. People had involvement in planning their care. Care plans were personalised and reflected each person�s needs and preferences.

Care plans were reviewed and updated when people�s needs changed.

People knew how to make a formal complaint. Where concerns were raised, the registered manager took appropriate action to resolve them.

Well-led

Good

Updated 10 May 2017

The service was well led. People and their relatives spoke positively about the management of the service.

There was a positive culture and the registered manager was committed to delivering effective care for people.

Staff received support and guidance from the management team.

There was a system in place to check if people were satisfied with the service provided. The management team carried out audits and assessments to make necessary improvements to the service.