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

Reports


Inspection carried out on 7 March 2017

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 5 May 2016

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Rosemont Care is a domiciliary care service based in Hornchurch, Essex. The service is registered to provide personal care for people in their own home, within the county of Essex. At the time of our inspection, the service provided a service to approximately 190 people, who received personal care and support in their own homes. The inspection was carried out on 5 May 2016 and was announced.

We initially inspected Rosemont Care on 23 July 2015 and found breaches of legal requirements during a comprehensive inspection. After the inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to supporting staff and ensuring that there were systems to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.

We undertook this focused inspection to check if they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. After the inspection, we also received concerns in relation to the safety and management of the service. This focused inspection looked into those additional concerns. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Rosemont Care on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

The service had a registered manager in post. However, they were in the process of de registering from their post as the service had appointed a new manager. 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.

At this inspection, we found that improvements to record keeping, staff supervision and appraisals had been completed and the service met legal requirements. We found that there were more adequate systems to monitor the safety and quality of the service. However, questionnaires to monitor people’s satisfaction with the service had not been carried out for over a year, as returned questionnaires held in the office were out of date.

People were cared for by staff who had an understanding of their needs. Staff demonstrated knowledge of safeguarding people from different types of potential abuse and how to respond. People had their individual risks assessed and had plans in place to manage the risks. Medicines were administered by staff that had received training to do this. The provider had procedures in place to check that people received their medicines as prescribed to effectively and safely meet their health needs.

Staff had been recruited following appropriate checks and the provider had arrangements in place to make sure that there was sufficient staff to provide support to people in their own homes. People told us they received care from care workers who understood their preferences for care and support.

People were listened to by staff and were involved in making decisions about their care and support. Care workers were caring and supportive in the service they provided. Care workers provided support that ensured people were treated with privacy and dignity. People were encouraged to express their views and give feedback about their care. They told us that care workers listened to them. People felt confident they could raise any issues or concerns with the new manager, should the need arise and that action would be taken.

Care workers felt supported by the new manager and the registered manager, who gave them opportunities to develop in their roles. The service provider was committed to improving the service and the quality of care provided to people. The service provider ensured regular checks were completed to monitor the care that people received and look at where improvements could be made.

We found one area where we have made a recommendation to the servi

Inspection carried out on 9 June 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 9 June 2015 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because we needed to be sure that someone would be in the office and able to assist us with the information we require for the inspection. At our previous inspection of this service on 28 August 2013 we found they were meeting the legal requirements relating to the areas we inspected.

Rosemont Care provides personal care for over 100 people ranging from older adults to younger people with disabilities in the London boroughs of Barking and Dagenham and Havering. They also provide reablement services for up to six weeks and aimed at promoting and encouraging people to function independently after leaving hospital or when recovering from an illness.

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 there were systems in place to monitor the quality of care delivered and staff training, we found shortfalls in the training methods, appraisal, supervision and training topics available for staff. The main issues highlighted by people relating to quality of care delivered had not yet been fully addressed. These included late visits and missed visits.

The registered manager and staff understood their roles well. Staff told us they were supported by the registered manager and we found three staff had been promoted to supervisors.

Risks to people and the environment were assessed and managed well. Accidents and incidents were reviewed to identify patterns and provide the right support to people.

People were supported to understand how to stay safe. Staff had a good understanding of how to recognise abuse and how to help protect people from the risk of abuse. Safeguarding procedures had been followed to keep people safe.

Recruitment procedures were thorough ensuring only staff who were suitable worked with people who used the service. Staff were supported through induction and regular spot checks.

Staff were kind and treated people with dignity and respect. Care plans reflected people’s views on how they wanted their care to be delivered.

People told us they were supported to eat and drink a balanced diet. Staff were aware of people who were on special diets and ensured that they served the appropriate food.

The policy in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was very brief and did not contain sufficient information for staff. Staff had limited understanding and could not explain how the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applied to their role.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. We saw evidence that the service had worked with other professionals such as district nurses, GP’s and pharmacists in order to deliver care.

We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of this report.