You are here

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

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 June 2018

The inspection took place on 13 March 2018. The inspection was unannounced.

The last comprehensive inspection took place on 25 May 2017. The service was rated as Requires improvement overall. Breaches of Regulations 11, 12, 16, 17 and 19 were identified. The provider had failed to follow the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The provider and registered manager had failed to adequately assess and mitigate risks to people and staff. The provider and registered manager had failed to establish and operate effective recruitment procedures. The provider and registered manager had failed to establish and operate effective complaint systems. The provider and registered manager were required to make further improvements to establish and operate effective systems to monitor and improve the quality of the service. We issued the provider warning notices in relation to Regulations 11 and 12 and told the provider to meet the Regulations by 31 July 2017. We also served one warning notice in relation to operating effective recruitment processes and told the provider to meet Regulation 19 by 14 August 2017.

The provider sent us an action plan on 25 October 2017. This identified that Regulation 16 had been met at the end of June 2017 and Regulation 17 had been met and ongoing monitoring was taking place.

We carried out a focused inspection on 20 September 2017 to check that the provider had met the warning notices which had been served following the previous inspection on 25 May 2017. We looked at the Safe and Effective domains. At the focused inspection we found that the provider had met Regulation 19 and Regulation 11 but had failed to meet Regulation 12. We also found a new breach of Regulation 18.

The provider sent us an action plan on 29 November 2017. This identified that Regulation 12 and Regulation 18 had been met and systems were in place to review and increase staff training.

Rosemont Care Medway is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to people living with dementia, learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder, mental health, older people, people who misuse drugs and alcohol, people with physical disability, people with a sensory impairment and younger adults.

Not everyone using Rosemont Care Medway receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. There were 54 people receiving personal care at the time of the inspection.

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. The registered manager was present at the service during the inspection.

At this inspection we found that there had been further improvements to the service. People and their relatives were positive about the care and support they received.

Risks to people's safety and welfare had been assessed and risks had been mitigated where possible. Each person receiving care had risk assessments in place. Further improvements were planned to ensure that risk assessments were person centred.

The provider had deployed enough staff to provide people’s care and support. Staff had travel time and breaks allocated to them. There were sufficient numbers of office staff to keep up with the demand for care and support services which included carrying out assessments, developing care plans, supervision of staff and scheduling care and support.

Effective recruitment procedures were in place to ensure that staff employed were back ground checked and

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 June 2018

The service was safe.

People were protected from abuse or the risk of abuse. The management team and staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities in relation to safeguarding people.

Effective recruitment procedures were in place. There were enough staff deployed to meet people�s needs.

Risks to people�s safety and welfare had been assessed and well managed to make sure they were protected from harm. Further improvements had been identified to make risk assessments more person centred.

People�s medicines were well managed. Medicines records were checked regularly and appropriate action taken when errors or gaps had been identified.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 June 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how this applied to their work. Staff demonstrated that people were fully involved in decision making and people confirmed this.

Staff had received training relevant to their roles. The provider had scheduled training to support staff. Staff supervision and spot checks took place.

People received medical assistance from healthcare professionals when they needed it.

People had appropriate support when required to ensure their nutrition and hydration needs were well met.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 June 2018

The service was caring.

People and their relatives told us they found the staff caring, friendly and helpful.

Staff were careful to protect people�s privacy and dignity. People told us they were treated with dignity and respect.

People�s information was treated confidentially.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 June 2018

The service was responsive.

People�s care plans provided clear information about the tasks staff were required to support people with in their own homes. The management team were making further improvements to people�s care plans to ensure that care met people�s assessed and changing needs.

The service had a complaints policy, which was on display in the office and people had a copy in their own homes. People�s complaints and concerns had been appropriately dealt with.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 June 2018

The service was well led.

Systems to monitor the quality of the service were effective. Records were stored securely.

The registered manager had reported incidents to CQC. The registered manager had displayed the rating from the last inspection in the service and on the website.

People�s and relatives views were gathered in surveys. The management team had planned to send surveys out again in May 2018. Compliments had been received about people�s care and support.

Staff were aware of the whistleblowing procedures and were confident that poor practice would be reported appropriately.

Staff were positive about the support they received from the management team.