Archived: Roseway House

Updated 18 October 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.

This inspection took place on 31 July 2018 and 06 August 2018 and was unannounced on the first day of inspection. The second day was announced. The inspection was carried out by two adult social care inspectors, one adult social care assistant inspector and a specialist advisor. The specialist advisor was a registered nurse.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed the information that we held about the service. This included any statutory notifications received. Statutory notifications are specific pieces of information about events, which the provider is required to send to us by law.

During the inspection, we spoke with seven people who lived at the home, one visiting nurse practitioner, nine relatives and ten members of staff including the manager, administrator, one regional activities co-ordinator, the deputy manager, one nurse, one senior care assistant, a laundry assistant, a domestic assistant, and three care assistants. We reviewed the care records for five people living at the home and the recruitment records for four members of staff.

We looked at quality assurance audits, as well as a range of records relating to the management and safety of the home. We spent time with some people who lived in the home and observed how staff supported them. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Updated 18 October 2018

We carried out an unannounced inspection of Roseway House on 31 July 2018 and 06 August 2018. This was the first rating inspection of the home since it was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in August 2017.

Roseway House is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home accommodates people in one adapted building over two floors and on the date of this inspection there were 42 people living at the home, some who of whom were living with dementia.

The service had a manager who had been in post since April 2018. They were currently in the process of becoming registered with the Commission as a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

The home had comprehensive safeguarding policies and procedures to help keep people safe. People at the home told us they felt safe living there and relatives agreed with these comments. The manager escalated all safeguarding concerns to the local authority and staff received training about safeguarding vulnerable adults. Accidents and incidents were recorded correctly, and investigated. If any further actions were required, they were acted upon and documented. Lessons learned from investigations were recorded and shared with staff, relatives and people.

Staff at the home were safely recruited and received induction training as part of their role. The manager ensured staff had access to on-going training to further develop their skills and knowledge. Staff received supervisions and appraisals from the manager and the frequency of these were in line with the provider’s staff supervision policy. There were enough staff to support people safely. Staff attended regular staff meetings with the manager.

The premises were safe for people living at the home. There were regular checks of the premises, equipment and utilities. These were all documented and regularly audited by the manager. Infection control policies were followed by staff. We saw regular cleaning of the home during our inspection.

Medicines were managed safely. Protocols and procedures were in place to ensure the safe receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines. There was documented involvement from other health care professionals, for example GPs and dieticians, in people’s care records.

People had access to a variety of food and drink. People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and they told us they were offered refreshments throughout the day. On the first day of inspection we observed that staff were not suitably deployed at lunch time to support people. The manager acted upon this and on the second day of inspection there were enough staff present to fully support people with their meals. There were pictorial menus available for people to help them choose what they would like to eat.

The premises were suitable for the needs of people living with dementia. People were encouraged to have personalised bedroom. There was pictorial signage throughout the home to help people orientate themselves. The manager told us they were focusing on developing the use of pictorial signage for menus and information boards.

People told us they had access to wide range of activities and we saw records detailing activities people had attended. These activities were developed with people to make sure they could be fully engaged and they were meaningful to them.

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 support this practice.

People had personalised care plans and risk assessments. These were created in partnership with people, their relatives and professionals. These plans were developed from detailed initial assessments of people’s needs and were regularly reviewed. Care records were accurate and up-to-date.

People had access to Independent Mental Capacity Advocates (IMCAs) and independent advocacy services if they wished to receive support. Information related to such services was on display in the home along with easy read safeguarding and complaints information.

We observed kind and caring interactions between people, staff and visitors. Staff were aware of what people liked and disliked and knew people well. People were treated with dignity and respect by staff.

The manager had a comprehensive governance framework in place which was in partnership with the provider. This framework ensured the quality and safety of the service provided to people. The manager and provider had a clear vision to improve the quality of people’s lives and the care they received.

There were regular meetings with people and relatives to discuss any issues and receive feedback about the home. The provider carried out feedback questionnaires with people, relatives, staff and visitors to help continually improve the service. There was a complaints procedure in place which was used by the service to learn and improve the quality of care provided to people.