Roselea

Updated 3 July 2021

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act.

This was a targeted inspection to check on a specific concern we had about the risks associated with choking.

Inspection team

This inspection was carried out by two inspectors.

Service and service type

Roselea is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

We gave the service 48 hours' notice of the inspection. This was because we needed to be sure that the registered manager would be available to support the inspection.

What we did before inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.

During the inspection

We spoke with four members of staff including the registered manager and the deputy manager. We spoke with two people who used the service as we looked over the premises. We reviewed relevant parts of three people's care records.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We looked at quality assurance records and policies and procedures.

Updated 3 July 2021

About the service

Roselea is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 11 people with a learning disability and/or autism. At the time of our inspection there were 11 people living at the service. The property is an adapted cottage with bedrooms available on the ground and first floor. First floor rooms were accessed by stairs. On the first floor there were three self-contained flats for people who wanted and could live more independently. There was garden space for people to access at the rear of the premises.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to 11 people. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However. the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

There were enough staff available to safely meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited safely, as the provider carried out the required checks prior to employing applicants. People had support from staff who had been trained and were supported by management. Staff told us they felt they had the skills to carry out their roles effectively.

People had their medicines as prescribed and staff made sure medicines were reviewed regularly. People’s risks were safely managed with risk management plans in place to give staff guidance.

The service was clean and well maintained. Safety checks regarding the environment were carried out regularly such as testing fire systems. People had their own rooms or self-contained flats which they could personalise if they wanted.

People had support to plan and prepare their own meals if they wanted. People’s health needs were recorded in a health action plan. Staff made timely referrals to healthcare professionals when needed. Staff worked as a team to make sure people’s needs were met. They used handovers to share information with each other.

People’s relatives told us staff were caring. People had a key worker who took time to get to know them and their needs well. People were involved in their care. They had care reviews to discuss their support and talk about how well it was working for them. People had their own personalised care plan which was reviewed when needed.

There was an open and positive culture at the service. Staff told us management were supportive and approachable. Team meetings were held regularly, and staff could share their ideas for improvements. Quality monitoring was carried out by the manager and the provider to assess and monitor quality and safety. Any improvements were added to an action plan for the service, which was monitored until actions were completed.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 23 June 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.