You are here

Rosemont Care Limited t/a Rosemont Care Good

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

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 4 August 2018

This comprehensive inspection took place on 26 June 2018 and was announced. This was the first inspection since the provider moved to a new location on 9 June 2017.

Rosemont Care Limited is based in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to older adults.

Not everyone using Rosemont Care receives regulated activity; the 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.

At the time of our inspection, 167 people were using the service, who received personal care. The provider employed 85 care staff, who visited people living in the local community. The service also provided short term 'reablement' care for people who were discharged from hospital and required support to help them become independent again.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

People had their individual risks assessed and staff were aware of how to manage these risks.

The provider had sufficient numbers of staff available to provide care and support to people during weekdays. However, some people did not receive a reliable and inconsistent service at weekends or in the evenings. The provider was taking action to ensure staff were recruited to fill these gaps.

Staff had been recruited following pre-employment checks such as criminal background checks, to ensure staff were safe to work with people.

Once recruited, staff received an induction, relevant training and were able to shadow experienced staff in order for them to carry out their roles effectively.

When required, staff prompted people to take their medicines and recorded this in daily logs. They had received training on how to do this. However, the management team had identified areas for staff to improve their performance in this area.

Incident records showed the provider took appropriate action following incidents. Systems were in place to analyse patterns and trends to ensure lessons were learnt and incidents were minimised.

The provider was compliant with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Staff had received supervision and training to ensure the service they provided to people was effective.

Staff told us that they received support and guidance from the registered manager and other senior staff. They received regular supervision and could approach the management team with any concerns they had.

People's care and support needs were assessed and reviewed regularly.

The provider worked with health professionals if there were concerns about people's health. People were registered with health care professionals, such as GPs and staff contacted them in emergencies.

People were supported to have their nutritional and hydration requirements met by staff, who provided them with meals and drinks of their choice, when they requested.

People were listened to by staff and were involved in their care and support planning.

People told us they were treated with dignity and respect when personal care was provided to them.

Care plans were person centred. They provided staff with sufficient information about each person’s individual preferences and how staff should meet these in order to obtain positive outcomes for each person.

Complaints about the service were responded to appropriately and within the provider’s timescales as set out in their complaints procedures.

The provider used technology, such as an online call sys

Inspection areas



Updated 4 August 2018

The service was safe.

Risks to people were identified to ensure staff were fully aware of them when providing care to people.

Staff understood how to safeguard people from abuse. They were aware of their responsibilities to report any concerns.

A recruitment procedure was in place to employ staff that were safe to work with people.

Staffing levels were sufficient to ensure people received support to meet their needs. The provider was recruiting new staff to ensure weekend and evening calls were covered and without delay.

People received their medicines safely when required. However, staff did not always record medicines accurately and the provider was taking to action to make improvements.



Updated 4 August 2018

The service was effective. Staff received up to date training and support through regular supervision meetings.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 were followed.

Assessments of people�s needs were carried out to ensure effective outcomes for their care. Changes in people�s care needs were updated in their care plans.

People had access to health professionals to ensure their health needs were monitored. Staff ensured people had their nutritional requirements met.



Updated 4 August 2018

The service was caring.

People and their relatives were involved in the decisions made about their care.

People were treated with dignity by staff when they received personal care.

Staff were familiar with people�s care and support needs.

Staff had developed caring relationships with the people they supported.



Updated 4 August 2018

The service was responsive. There was a complaint procedure in place and complaints were investigated.

The provider ensured information was accessible to people in a way they could understand it.

Care plans were person centred and reflected each person�s needs, and preferences.



Updated 4 August 2018

The service was well led. There was a quality assurance system in place, which had identified some of the shortfalls within the service.

Staff received support and guidance from the management team.

People and their relatives were provided with opportunities to provide their feedback on the quality of the service.