Rosedale Court

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service 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. The registered manager shared learning with staff from incidents, accidents, complaints and safeguarding so that the service could continually improve and develop positive outcomes for people. Information was shared with staff through handovers, daily flash meetings, supervisions and staff meetings.
The registered manager and clinical deputy manager also completed regular daily walkarounds of the service. This enabled them to maintain oversight of the quality and safety of care being provided, identify any issues promptly and engage with people and staff throughout the day. These walkarounds provided additional opportunities to monitor practice, address concerns and ensure any actions required were followed up in a timely manner.
 

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. Before people came to live at the service the registered manager completed a full assessment of their needs to ensure they could be met by the service. People and their relatives had an opportunity to visit the service before they moved in to see if it was a place they would like to live. The registered manager liaised with other healthcare professionals to ensure people’s healthcare needs continued to be supported. A relative told us, “We had an assessment completed before [relative] moved into the home. They asked us questions to get to know [relative]. We are fully involved in the care plan and any reviews.”

The service 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. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Staff had received training in safeguarding and knew how to raise concerns. A member of staff told us, ''I know how to report any form of abuse, and I would take immediate action. I would know who to report to and I would continue to escalate further to the Local Authority if I needed to.'' Staff could recognise signs when people experienced emotional distress and knew how to support them. For example, a member of staff told us they would know what to say and how to support a person's distress when they became anxious.
We received positive feedback from people and relatives. A person told us, “I feel very safe here. Staff are around if I need anything.” A relative told us, “The staff always keep us up to date with any changes and are very responsive.” A health professional told us, “Rosedale, provides safe care to support the people living there.”
 

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks using a holistic approach. Staff provided care that was safe, supportive, and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Risks were clearly identified and appropriate safeguards put in place to mitigate them. For example, when people were at risk of experiencing falls, staff ensured appropriate equipment was in place and worked with people to reduce these risks. Staff also promoted preventative measures, such as encouraging people to remain well hydrated and nourished to reduce the risk of infections or skin breakdown. People were supported to live full lives, including safely accessing the community.
There was also clear guidance in place for staff to support people with specific health needs such as diabetes. Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) contained all the information staff, and the fire service may need to evacuate people safely in the event of a fire.
Although people's care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed, we identified some instances where information discussed during reviews had not always been updated within the relevant care planning documentation. Following feedback during the inspection, the clinical deputy manager took immediate action to review and update the care plans to ensure they accurately reflected people's current needs, preferences and risks.
 

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The environment was adapted to meet the needs of people living there. There were spacious living areas offering people plenty of room to relax and engage in activities comfortably. Additionally, people had access to outdoor spaces, providing an opportunity to enjoy fresh air and relax in the gardens. People had their own rooms and specialist equipment was provided as needed. Maintenance staff were employed to ensure the premises were well-maintained and safe. There were systems in place to ensure any maintenance needed was recorded and responded to promptly.
People told us the environment was accessible and supported their independence. A person with a health condition that required the use of an electric wheelchair told us they could move around the service independently. They told us, “The doorways are wide enough, the lifts are easy to use, and I am able to access all areas of the home safely and without restriction.”
 

The service had enough staff with the skills and experience to meet people's needs and staff told us they received support, supervision and opportunities for development. The registered manager had processes in place to support staff through induction when they commenced employment.
Appropriate recruitment checks were carried out before staff started work, including obtaining employment histories, references and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. However, we identified gaps within some staff records. For example, not all references had been verified, and the service's audit processes had not identified this omission. We also found some induction records had not been signed and dated to demonstrate completion.
Some staff were unable to clearly explain the service's fire evacuation procedures or their responsibilities in the event of a fire. This meant staff knowledge of fire safety arrangements was not always consistent and there was a risk staff may not have responded appropriately in an emergency situation.
Following the inspection, the service took prompt action to address the issues identified. The Regional Operations Director commenced a comprehensive review of all staff files to identify and address any outstanding gaps in documentation. In addition, they told us that induction, probation and supervision records would be maintained within a single file to improve organisation, monitoring and governance arrangements. The provider arranged additional fire safety training for newer staff members and refresher training for staff who required further support or were due to renew their training. These actions assured us these issues were addressed during our inspection.
A person told us, “There are enough staff here. They are spot on. I need a hoist and there are always 2 of them there ready to help me. Everyday 11am till 12pm the staff do ‘tools down’ which means all the carers stop what they are doing and spend time with us all which I think is lovely.”
Some relatives felt the service could benefit from an additional member of staff. However, during our inspection we did not identify any concerns regarding staffing levels. People received support in a timely way, call bells were responded to promptly, and staff were available throughout the home to meet people's needs.
 

The registered manager assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Staff had received training in infection and prevention control, and the provider had policies in place for staff to follow, should there be any outbreaks of infectious diseases. The service had regular cleaning schedules in place and staff had personal protection equipment (PPE) available for their use. The registered manager carried out regular checks and audits to monitor the cleanliness of the service.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. Staff did not support people with medicines until they had completed the required training, and medicine competency assessments were completed. People had care plans and risk assessments in place which detailed what medicines they were prescribed and how they liked to be supported. Protocols were in place for medicines prescribed on an as required (PRN) basis. Where people received covert medication, clear guidance and appropriate authorisation processes were in place to ensure medicines were administered safely and in line with best practice. The registered manager and clinical deputy manager carried out regular audits and where discrepancies were noted these were investigated to identify the cause and any actions needed.