You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 12 January 2019

What life is like for people using this service:

People using the service and their relatives gave us positive feedback about the service. They thought the service was well managed and in general they were happy with the support received.

People had their care needs, preferences and potential risks assessed. The system currently used by the service to record these needs and risks was complex and the gathered information was not always readily available to staff. The registered manager assured us that action would be taken to address this.

The service had systems in place to ensure people were protected from harm. These included safeguarding policies and procedures and appropriate recruitment practice. There were sufficient staffing levels to ensure people’s needs were met. Suitable health and safety and infection control practices were followed by staff. Medicines were managed according to the current guidelines and people received their medicines safely and as prescribed

Staff who supported people had appropriate skills, training and experience to provide effective and safe care. Staff were supported to carry out their roles through regular supervision, spot checks and yearly appraisal of their skills.

People were supported to live a healthy life. When required staff supported people to have sufficient food and drink and the support provided was in line with people’s dietary needs, cultural and personal preferences. When people’s health deteriorated staff ensured people had prompt access to relevant health services.

Care and treatment were provided in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People could choose how care was provided to them and staff asked for people’s consent before supporting them.

People were encouraged to be as independent as they could and be involved in making decisions about their care. People thought staff were caring and they said they had the opportunity to discuss their care needs and wishes in monthly meetings with their care worker.

Staff had good understanding of people’s individual needs, preferences and chosen ways of living. People were supported to adhere to their cultural and religious beliefs as well as be open about their sexual orientation or gender identity.

People were encouraged to give their feedback about the quality of the service they received. There were various forums at the service where people could express their opinion and it was listened to. The complaints policy was in place if people chose to make a formal complaint and these were dealt with promptly.

The management team provided clear lines of responsibility and accountability. The management team and care staff knew what was expected from them. Staff felt the service was well led and management had been supportive and easy to approach when they needed to discuss any issue.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service delivered. The registered manager was proactive in addressing issues of concern and drove improvements to ensure lessons were learnt and the possibility of problems reoccurring was reduced.

External health and social care professionals gave positive feedback about the service. They said staff were caring and had sufficient skills to support people. They also said the management team was transparent and honest about the service provided to people.

We made one recommendation related to effective care planning.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 13 April 2016)

About the service: Roseberry Mansions is a supported living scheme that provides 40 flats for older people. At the time of our inspection There were 25 people receiving support.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service and we will revisit it in the future to check if they continue to provide good quality of care to people who use it.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 12 January 2019

The service was not always safe

Details are in our Safe findings below.



Updated 12 January 2019

The service was effective

Details are in our Effective findings below.



Updated 12 January 2019

The service was caring

Details are in our Caring findings below.



Updated 12 January 2019

The service was responsive

Details are in our Responsive findings below.



Updated 12 January 2019

The service was well-led

Details are in our Well-Led findings below.