You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

We are carrying out a review of quality at Roden Hall Nursing Home. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 13 March 2019

Roden Hall Nursing Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Roden Hall Nursing Home accommodates up to 45 people with bedrooms on several floors, which are accessible by a lift and stairway. However, at this inspection alterations were being made to the building and people were living on the ground and first floors. In addition to the alterations to Roden Hall Nursing Home a new purpose build nursing home was being built in the grounds. As a result, the numbers of those living there had been reduced. At this inspection 22 people were living there.

Since our last inspection a newly appointed registered manager has taken up their position at Roden Hall Nursing Home and was present during this inspection’s site visit. 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.

Following our last inspection in January 2017 we published our report in April 2017. At that inspection we identified areas of improvement that needed to be made. These were in relation to the key questions, Safe, concerns about abuse and ill-treatment were not always passed to appropriate agencies and there were not always enough staff to meet people’s needs in a timely manner. In addition, the fire safety plan was not being followed. Effective, people sometimes had to wait for assistance at meal times. Caring, people were not always treated with respect. Responsive, people did not always have care plans that were up to date. Well-led, quality checks were not always effective to identify improvements needed.

At our last inspection we identified one breach in regulation. This was Regulation 12 HSCA Regulations 2014 - Safe care and treatment. Risks had been identified in relation to managing fire risks safely and an action plan to reduce the risk had been produced but was not being followed. We asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do, and by when, to improve this key question. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and they were no longer in breach of this regulation.

However, at this inspection we identified some improvements were still required regarding the safety of parts of the building. In addition, we found that effective infection prevention and control practices were not fully embedded into staff members practice and that parts of the building did not support effective cleaning procedures. The management team and the provider did not have effective quality checks in place to identify and drive the changes required.

People were safe from the risk of abuse and ill-treatment as staff knew how to recognise and respond to concerns. Any concerns raised with the registered manager were acted on appropriately. There were enough staff to support people to meet their needs in a timely manner. The provider followed safe recruitment procedures when employing new staff members.

People were safely supported with their medicines by competent staff members. New staff members received an introduction to their role and were equipped with the skills they needed to work with people. Staff members had access to on-going training to maintain their skills and to keep up to date with changes in adult social care.

People received care that was effective and personalised to their individual needs and preferences. 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’s human rights and p

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 13 March 2019

The service was not always safe.

Not all parts of the building were safe for those living there. Infection prevention and control practices were not fully embedded.

People were protected from the risks of harm or abuse as the staff team knew how to recognise the signs and how to report concerns.

People received assistance with their medicines from a trained and competent staff team.

The provider followed safe staff recruitment checks.



Updated 13 March 2019

The service was effective.

People were supported by a skilled and knowledgeable staff team. People’s human rights were respected by those assisting them.

People received assistance from staff members who felt well supported in their role. People received enough food and fluids to maintain good health.

When needed people were referred onto community based health professionals promptly.



Updated 13 March 2019

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who were caring and compassionate. People felt valued by those supporting them.

People’s protected characteristics, such as disability and faith, were understood and supported by staff members.

People had their privacy and dignity respected by staff members. People were supported at times they felt upset.

People were encouraged to maintain relationships that mattered to them.



Updated 13 March 2019

The service was responsive.

People were involved in the development of their care and support plans which reflected their needs and preferences.

People had access to information in a format they could understand. People were engaged in activities they found enjoyable and stimulating.

People and relatives knew how to raise concerns and the management team had systems in place to respond to any concerns or compliments raised with them.


Requires improvement

Updated 13 March 2019

The service was not always well-led.

The management team and provider did not have effective quality checks in place to identify and drive improvements in the service they provided.

The management team and the provider valued people’s and staff members views and encouraged and respected their opinions.

The registered manager understood the requirements of their registration.

The management team had good links with community based facilities which people benefited from.