Rosehill Care

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

This is the first inspection of this newly registered service and therefore we assessed all 7 quality statements from this key question. Based on the findings of this assessment, our rating for this key question is good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care. However, the providers governance systems had failed to pick up and/or address a number of issues we identified during this inspection including, how some risks were assessed and managed, and how records were stored. We found no evidence that people had been harmed, but this failure had placed people at risk of harm. This represented a breach of Regulation 17 (Good Governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can find more details of our concerns in the evidence category findings below. The home care agency was well-managed and people were complimentary about how accessible and approachable the registered manager was. The registered manager had the right skills, knowledge, experience to lead effectively. The provider’s culture was positive, open, and honest, with leadership and management that was clearly identifiable and transparent. The provider had a positive culture of learning lessons when things went wrong. The provider worked in partnership with various community health and social care professionals and agencies to plan and deliver people's packages of care.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The registered manager and staff told us they aimed to give people they supported the best quality care they could. The registered manager had a clear vision for the agency and told us they routinely used regular in-person contact with staff during monitoring checks to observe their working practices, group team meetings and one-to-one work performance appraisals, where staff were frequently reminded about the organisations underlying core values and principles.

The service aimed to give people consistently safe care and staff worked well together to achieve this.

Staff told us the service was well-led by a suitably competent and approachable manager [registered]. A member of staff said, “The agency is very well-run by a qualified nurse who knows what she’s doing and is always approachable and supportive.” Another added, “[Name of registered manager] is kind and always makes us feel included in how the service is run.”

The registered manager had the relevant skills, knowledge, and experience to effectively lead the service. A relative told us, “My impression is that Rosehill Care is an extremely well run organisation. The carers appear happy and the manager [registered] is always easy to get hold of and have an open discussion with.”

The registered manager valued and listened to the views of staff. Staff told us they were encouraged to contribute their ideas about what the service did well and what they could do better during regular individual and group meetings with the registered manager.

The provider promoted an open and inclusive culture which sought the views of people using the service, their relatives, and staff who worked for them. The registered manager used a range of methods to gather people’s views about the quality of service provided. Including, regular in-person and telephone contact with people using the service and staff, care plan reviews, team meetings, and stakeholder satisfaction surveys.

Staff told us they were treated well by a supportive registered manager who always treated them equally and fairly. They also said they worked well together as part of a varied and ethnically diverse workforce which reflected the local community and people they provided a home care service to.

The registered manager valued and respected the equality and diversity of her team and treated them equally and fairly.

The registered manager acknowledged they needed to improve how they operated their oversight and scrutiny systems and maintained records.

Although the provider had established governance and monitoring systems in place, these were not always operated effectively. This was because these systems had failed to identify and/or take appropriate action to address a number of issues we identified at our inspection including, how the provider assessed and managed potential risks people might face and maintained some records. However, the provider did conduct various audits and check at regular intervals. This included in-person and telephone welfare checks on people they supported, how they coordinated staffs home care visits, and weekly observations of staffs working practises during these visits. The provider used ECM to coordinate and monitored staffs home care visit which would automatically notify the registered manager if staff were late, left early or missed a visit altogether. EMC indicated staff were punctual for their scheduled call visits. People told us the registered manager made in-person and telephone contact with them at least once a week to check their welfare and seek their feedback about the quality of the home care service they received. The registered manager understood their responsibilities in relation to their regulatory requirements around notifiable incidents.

People told us staff supported them to stay in contact with external community health and social care professionals and agencies as and when they needed them.

The registered manager told us they regularly consulted external community health and social care professionals and agencies, welcomed their views and advice, and shared best care practice ideas with the staff team.

No feedback was received from any external community health and social care professionals and bodies the provider worked with.

The provider regularly consulted external community health and social care professionals and agencies, welcomed their views and advice, and shared best care practice ideas with the staff team.

Feedback we received from the registered manager showed us they recognised the importance of learning lessons and continuous improvement. This ensured they maintained person-centred and safe care for people they supported.

The outcome of all the audits and checks the provider carried out were always analysed to identify performance shortfalls and learn lessons, so this service could continuously improve.