Rosewood

Updated 10 May 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

We undertook this unannounced comprehensive inspection on 21 March 2018 and it was carried out by an inspector.

Before the inspection, we reviewed information we held about the service including statutory notifications sent to us about incidents and events that occurred at the service. The provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that requires providers to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During our inspection we communicated with one person, two relatives, service manager, registered manager, new manager, deputy manager, three support workers, one registered nurse and the cook. We looked at four people’s care records, the medicine management records for the eight people using the service; and five staff files including their recruitment and supervision records. We also reviewed other records relating to the management of the service such as health and safety, complaints and quality assurance. We carried out Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) to check how staff cared and interacted with people. SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

After the inspection, we spoke with four relatives to obtain their feedback about the service.

Updated 10 May 2018

This unannounced inspection of Rosewood Care Home took place on 21 March 2018. Rosewood is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Rosewood care home accommodates eight people with learning disabilities in one adapted building. There were eight people using the service when we visited. The service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

At the last inspection of Rosewood in December 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Rosewood had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were safe at the service. Staff had been trained in safeguarding people from abuse. Staff demonstrated that they understood the signs of abuse and how to report any concerns in line with the registered provider’s procedures. The managers took appropriate actions to safeguard people from abuse. People’s needs were met by sufficient number of staff who had undergone safe recruitment checks. Risks were assessed and comprehensive management plans developed to mitigate risks identified.

Medicines were administered to people in a safe way. Records for the administration of medicines were maintained and medicines were stored safely. The environment was safe, clean and hygienic. Health and safety systems of building and environment were well maintained. Staff followed good infection control procedures. Staff kept record of incidents that occurred at the service. These were reviewed by the registered manager and actions were discussed with staff so that lessons could be learned.

People’s individual care needs had been assessed and their support planned with input from their relatives and relevant professionals. Regular reviews took place to ensure support delivered to people continued to meet their needs.

Staff were trained, supervised and had the skills and knowledge to meet the needs of people. People had food and drinks to meet their nutritional and dietary needs. Staff worked effectively with health and social care professionals to ensure a well-coordinated service for people. People received support to attend health appointments and to maintain good health. The service had systems in place to enable smooth transition when people moved between services. There were suitable facilities and adaptations in the home for people to use.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff had completed the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training. The service ensured appropriate consent was obtained before a decision was made for people. When required relatives were involved in decision making about people’s care and support. Staff and the registered manager understood their responsibilities under MCA and DoLS.

Staff understood people’s needs and treated them with respect, kindness and dignity. Staff communicated with people in the manner they understood and in an accessible format. Staff supported people to express their views. People’s relatives were involved in their care planning and their views respected.

People received care tailored to meet their requirements and preferences. People took part in activities they enjoyed and were encouraged and supported to socialise. People were supported to maintain relationships which mattered to them. People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy with the service.

The service sought feedback from people and their relatives and used them to improve the service. Staff received the support, direction and leadership they needed. There were a range of systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of service provided. The service worked in partnership with both internal and external organisations to develop and improve the service.