Archived: Rose Court

Updated 8 April 2022

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. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

As part of CQC's response to the coronavirus pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 23 February 2021 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours' notice of the inspection.

Updated 8 April 2022

Rose Court is a residential care home for 48 people with dementia and physical difficulties. The service is located over four floors and people with the most complex needs live on the second and third floors of the home.

At the last inspection on the 2 June 2015 the service was rated Good.

This inspection took place on 15 and 28 September 2017. At this inspection we found the service remained Good and the registered provider continued to meet all of the fundamental standards.

There was not a registered manager in post. Since the last inspection, the registered manager of the service had left the service. The Care Quality Commission was informed of this change. The registered provider has identified a new home manager, who will transfer from one of the registered provider’s other locations and register with CQC. 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.

Staff understood how to protect people from harm and abuse. The registered provider had an embedded safeguarding process in place that supported actions staff took to protect people at risk.

Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were identified. A plan of action was developed, implemented and followed by staff to reduce risks occurring and to keep people safe.

The management of medicines for people continued to be safe. Staff administered medicines to people as prescribed. People’s medicines were ordered, stored, administered and disposed of in a safe way.

There continued to be enough safely recruited staff employed. Staff rotas showed enough staff were deployed during the day and night to meet people’s needs.

Staff continued to receive regular training, supervision, and appraisals. This provided staff with opportunities to become familiar with expectations of working at the service and with people, and to identify and improve their skills and knowledge in their roles.

People are 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 supported people in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and carried out mental capacity assessments and applied for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations as appropriate.

Staff continued to meet people’s nutritional needs because they provided enough food and drink for them. People on specialist diets were supported with these as required.

Staff continued to provide support to people in a caring and compassionate way. Staff respected people in a way that protected their privacy and dignity.

People were supported by heath care professionals when required. When people’s healthcare needs changed staff sought support and advice from health care professionals to ensure they continued to meet people’s needs.

People’s needs were assessed to ensure these could be met at the service. Care and support was appropriately planned for people. People had a care plan in place that provided staff with guidance to help them meet people’s needs.

People and their relatives continued to be encouraged to make a complaint about the service where they were dissatisfied. The registered provider had a complaint process that people understood. People and their relatives were supported to make comments about the quality of care received.

The registered provider had an effective system in place to monitor, review and improve the service.