You are here

Rose Lodge & Holland House Care Home Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 October 2017

We inspected the service on 7 September 2017. The visit was unannounced which meant that the registered manager and staff did not know we were coming.

Rose Lodge is a registered care service providing personal care and support for up to 33 older people. There were 33 people using the service when we visited and some were living with dementia.

There was a registered manager. It is a requirement that the service has 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.

Staff knew their responsibilities to help keep people safe from harm and abuse. The registered manager took action where an accident or incident occurred to try to prevent a reoccurrence. Risks to people’s health and well-being were assessed and monitored. Staff had guidance on how to help people to remain safe including in the event of an emergency. The provider had safely recruited a suitable number of staff to provide care and support to people.

People received their medicines when they required them by staff who had received training and guidance to administer them safely. The registered manager planned to remind staff to remain with people until they were sure people had taken their medicines as this had not always occurred.

People received care from staff members with the necessary knowledge and skills. Staff received on-going support and they knew their responsibilities. They received training in areas such as the safe handling of medicines and assisting people to move from one position to another.

People were asked for their consent before care was undertaken. People were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People’s mental capacity had been assessed where required and any decision made in a person’s best interest involved important people in their life. The provider had made applications to the appropriate body where they had sought to deprive some people using the service of their liberties to make sure this was safe. Staff understood the requirements under the Act.

People were satisfied with the variety of food and drink available to them. The provider was making changes to the serving of people’s food based on the feedback they had received. Staff knew people’s dietary requirements and where there were concerns about a person’s eating and drinking, specialist advice was sought.

People were supported to maintain their health and close observation occurred where this was required. People had access to healthcare professionals such as to a doctor and optician.

People’s privacy and dignity was protected and staff offered their support in caring and compassionate ways. People’s friends and family could visit without undue restriction.

People’s life history and things that mattered to them were known by staff. Their independence was maintained for as long as possible by staff who offered encouragement.

People received care based on things that mattered to them. This was because people or their relatives contributed to the planning and review of their care. Staff had the guidance they needed to meet people’s preferences and care requirements.

People and their loved ones spoke highly of the activities available at Rose Lodge. The activities available were based on people’s interests and things that mattered to them.

People and their visitors knew how to make a complaint. The registered manager took action to make improvements where this was required following a complaint being made.

The service was well-led and it had an open approach to sharing information with other agencies. There were opportunities for staff, people and their families to offer suggestions for how the service could improve. The provider and registered manager l

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 October 2017

The service was safe.

People were protected from avoidable harm and abuse by staff who knew their responsibilities for supporting them to remain safe.

The provider had recruited a sufficient number of staff to meet people’s care needs. Prospective staff were safely recruited and checks on their suitability occurred.

People received their medicines when they needed them.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 October 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had the skills and knowledge they needed to offer good care to people.

People received care that upheld their rights and freedoms. Where decisions were made on a person’s behalf, these were made in their best interest.

People were satisfied with the variety of food and drink available to them. Specialist advice was sought where staff had concerns about people’s eating and drinking.

People were supported to maintain their health and had access to healthcare services.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 October 2017

The service was caring.

People were supported in caring and kind ways by staff and their dignity and privacy was protected.

People were involved in decisions about their care wherever possible.

People were supported to retain their skills for as long as possible.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 October 2017

The service was responsive.

People experienced care that was based on things that mattered to them.

People or their representatives had contributed to the planning and review of their care.

People took part in activities they enjoyed.

The provider had informed people and their visitors how they could make a complaint and they responded appropriately to any received.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 October 2017

The service was well led.

The provider had an open approach to sharing information with other agencies.

Staff received good support and knew their responsibilities.

People, relatives and staff had opportunities to give suggestions for how the provider could improve the service.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities. The provider and registered manager carried out a range of checks on the quality of the service to make sure it was of a high standard.