Rosemont Care Limited t/a Rosemont Care

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Staff reported safety events, and the management team took responsibility for investigating them. There was an effective system for recording and monitoring accidents and incidents, with staff completing detailed reports after any event.

The management team reviewed all reports, carried out investigations where necessary, and undertook root cause analyses to identify contributory factors. Learning outcomes were shared with the staff team and embedded into everyday practice to reduce future risks. This approach supported continuous improvement and helped ensure people remained safe while using the service. For example, we noted appropriate actions were taken by staff when a person had a fall. Medical advice was sought.

There was an on‑call system in place, ensuring a member of the management team was always available for advice and guidance.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

People’s needs were assessed before they began receiving care and support to ensure the service could meet those needs safely and effectively. The assessment process considered all aspects of each person’s wellbeing, including physical, social, psychological, and cultural needs.

The management team gathered detailed information from people, their relatives, and local authorities to gain a comprehensive understanding of each person’s requirements.

This information was then used to develop person-centred care plans. These plans provided clear guidance for staff, enabling them to deliver care and support tailored to each person’s preferences, routines, and identified needs.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

People said they felt safe with the staff. A person said, “I feel safe with the carers.” A relative told us, “I am very happy with the carers, and I have no concerns when they come to see my [family member].”

The provider had appropriate safeguarding policies and procedures to guide staff in responding to any allegations of abuse. Records reviewed confirmed that staff had received safeguarding training, which strengthened their knowledge of safeguarding principles and their responsibilities to protect people from harm. This helped ensure staff were able to recognise and respond appropriately to safeguarding concerns. We saw this topic was also discussed during staff supervisions and team meetings.

Staff had a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities in relation to safeguarding and the reporting of concerns. It was evident from discussions with staff that they were aware of the procedures to follow and the external agencies that must be contacted without delay if they suspected that people using the service were at risk of harm. A member of staff told us, “If I see any abuse going on, I will report this to my line manager.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Potential risks to people’s safety and wellbeing were assessed to ensure care and support were planned and delivered in a safe and effective manner. Where risks were identified, appropriate control measures were implemented and clearly documented. For example, where people were assessed as being at risk of dehydration, detailed guidance was provided for staff outlining the actions required to minimise the risk and promote people’s safety and wellbeing.

Risk assessments were subject to regular review and were updated by the management team to accurately reflect any changes in people’s needs, circumstances, or levels of risk.

Staff consistently monitored people’s health, safety, and wellbeing and promptly escalated any new or emerging concerns to the management team. This ensured appropriate and timely action could be taken to safeguard people and maintain their safety and welfare.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The management team undertook assessments to identify potential environmental hazards within people’s homes and implemented appropriate measures to mitigate identified risks. For example, checks were completed to ensure environments were safe and free from trip hazards, and that adequate lighting was available when staff visited people during the night.

All equipment used in the delivery of care were routinely checked to ensure it was safe, suitable, and operating effectively. This supported the delivery of safe and effective care and helped to protect people’s health, safety, and wellbeing. We saw instructions advising staff on how to use equipment safely, for example, when using a hoist system with a person.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staff rotas showed people were supported by a consistent group of care staff who were familiar with their specific needs. Continuity of care was maintained wherever possible, with the same staff members providing support unless they were on leave or unwell. This approach promoted stability and consistency, enabling staff to develop a thorough understanding of each person’s needs and preferences.

The provider used a monitoring system to track the completion of all scheduled visits. This system ensured that people received their care at the agreed times and enabled office staff to communicate any delays, such as those caused by traffic, in a timely manner.

Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place to safeguard people from the risk of receiving care from unsuitable staff. A review of staff recruitment files confirmed that all required pre-employment checks had been completed. Each file contained appropriate references, proof of identity, and evidence of a criminal records check.

Feedback from people using the service and their relatives indicated that staff possessed the necessary knowledge and skills to provide effective care. A person said, “The staff are good and know what they are doing.”

The provider had a training programme to ensure staff had the skills and knowledge required to meet people’s needs effectively. Training was completed in key areas, including moving and handling, infection prevention and control, basic life support, food hygiene, and medicine management. This ensured staff were competent and confident in carrying out their roles. A staff member told us, “We have training in different areas such as abuse, moving and handling, first aid etc.”

Newly appointed staff completed a structured induction programme upon commencing employment. This induction covered mandatory training, familiarisation with organisational policies and procedures, and opportunities to engage with people using the service to understand their needs and preferences.

Staff were not permitted to work unsupervised until they had demonstrated the required level of competence. They were supported through a period of shadowing experienced staff to develop their confidence, skills, and understanding of the role.

There were regular supervision meetings between staff and their line managers. These sessions provided an opportunity to discuss performance, address any concerns, identify training and development needs, and consider any personal factors that may impact their work. Discussions also included a review of people’s needs and outcomes to ensure that care remained effective and person-centred.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Robust systems were in place to monitor and prevent the spread of infection. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was readily available to staff and was used appropriately in practice.

Staff had completed infection prevention and control training and demonstrated a clear understanding of their responsibilities in this area. They were knowledgeable about measures required to reduce the risk of transmission of infectious diseases, including maintaining effective hand hygiene and adhering to appropriate cleaning and waste disposal procedures.

People and their relatives confirmed that staff consistently wore appropriate PPE during visits. The provider also carried out unannounced spot checks to monitor compliance, ensuring that staff used and disposed of PPE correctly.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

People were supported to take their medicines safely. Where support was required, staff assisted people to take their medicines as prescribed. People told us they were happy with the arrangements in place.

Accurate records were maintained, including details of prescribed medicines within people care records. Staff administering medicines had their competency assessed to ensure they had the necessary knowledge and skills to carry out this role safely.

Systems were in place to monitor the safe management of medicines. The management team carried out regular audits of medicines records to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.