• Care Home
  • Care home

Estherene House

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

35 Kirkley Park Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk, NR33 0LQ (01502) 572805

Provided and run by:
QH (Rosewood) Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile
Important:

We issued a Warning Notice on QH (Rosewood) Limited on 23 May 2025, for failing to meet Regulation 18 relating to staffing at Estherene House.

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Our current view of the service

Requires improvement

Updated 4 April 2025

Date of Assessment: 24 and 28 April 2025. We received new information from the provider following the assessment visits, so we returned for a third day on the 28 May 2025. This assessment was prompted in part due to concerns raised around the quality of care people received, staff conduct, and staffing levels. The service was last inspected 14 December 2021 (published 24 December 2021). The service is a residential care home for up to 36 older people. At the time of assessment there were 35 older people living at the home, some of whom were living with dementia.

We identified 3 breaches of regulation relating to receiving safe care and treatment, staffing, and governance of the service. Governance processes required improvement as audits had not always identified the concerns we found. Documentation around consent procedures needed to improve to ensure people were given as much opportunity as possible to participate in their care and make choices.

Staffing levels were not always consistent, and improvement was needed to ensure people were always safe. Several staff told us they were tired as they often worked below allocated staffing levels. Recruitment processes required more robust oversight to ensure staff records were checked and any gaps identified.

The provider did not always have guidance in place for staff to monitor and support people with identified risks, which included falls and bowel management. Staff received training relevant to their role and they understood their responsibility to protect people from abuse. However, some staff did not know who to contact outside of the service to raise concerns externally.

Some improvements were necessary to ensure staff understood equality, diversity and human rights in practice, as this had not always been the case.

People received their prescribed medicines as directed, however, some improvements were required to ensure safe storage, and protocols for medicines used ‘as required’ Facilities were clean and well-maintained.

The registered manager and provider were responsive to our findings and promptly implemented an action plan to begin making the necessary improvements.

The majority of staff spoke positively about the registered manager, but some staff told us they did not always feel valued or supported. We observed kind and caring interactions between staff and people living in the service. Staff knew people well which helped to provide person-centred care.

The overall rating for the service has changed from ‘good’, to ‘requires improvement’ at this assessment. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment. In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded.

 

People's experience of the service

Updated 4 April 2025

During the assessment, we received feedback from 5 people who used the service and 10 relatives. The staff were well-liked by people, thought to be caring and kind, and trusted to do a competent job. We observed respectful and caring interactions by all staff providing people’s care. Staff clearly knew people’s needs well, which helped to provide person-centred care. Staff spoke about people in a caring way, explaining how they always try and do their best for people.

People told us they felt safe with the staff who provided their care. One person told us, “Staff are very friendly, they’re joyful.” Another said, “Lovely staff, nothing is too much trouble.” However, some people told us they did not always feel safe on occasions when other people entered their rooms. One person said, “On a bad night it could happen 2 or 3 times a night and on one occasion with a fellow resident mistaking my room for a toilet.” Another said, “I [had someone come in my room] last week but rang the bell, they came fast. They don’t always.”

Some people felt the staffing levels were not sufficient. One person said, “When you ring the bell they’re a [very] long time before they answer. They come and say I’ll be back in 10 minutes but then it’s often half an hour.” Another said, “I think the staffing isn’t enough, they do answer [the bell] but come back much later.” A relative told us, “I like the [staff] here, almost without exception hard-working. There is quite a delay sometimes. They have a lot to do especially at peak times. I’m not sure they have the resource to do what they want. It would be good to have a few more ‘short hours' staff at peak times.” Another relative said, “I had to stop a person climbing the stairs as there were no staff around. It’s definitely not enough [staff].”

People’s views were sought through surveys and regular meetings. People felt confident to raise concerns with staff, and the majority of relatives told us their concerns were acted on promptly. Relatives told us they could visit their family members with no restrictions.