Roseville Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Systems were in place to keep people safe from avoidable harm and abuse. Risks were assessed and mitigated, and people were cared for by staff who knew them well. Processes were in place to ensure the safety of the premises and equipment. The provider had identified areas of improvement were needed in relation to staffing including recruitment records, training and support and supervision. We found no evidence of impact on people in these areas and the provider discussed plans for further improvement.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People told us they felt safe at the home and were supported by kind and caring staff who knew them well. Relatives shared this view and said any concerns had been responded to quickly by the current home manager.

Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding, and concerns were raised appropriately. A new anonymous whistle-blowing procedure had been implemented which staff were aware of and knew how to use. Some staff had limited knowledge of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. We shared this with the leaders who were proactive in developing a supervision focusing on mental capacity and consent. They also said this was going to be developed further into themed monthly workshops to develop staff understanding and competency in a range of focused areas.

Staff were observed to have positive relationships with people who they clearly knew well. Care and support was provided in a respectful way which reassured people and supported them to feel safe.

Systems and processes were in place to safeguard people from the risk of harm. Where safeguarding concerns had been raised, they were appropriately investigated, lessons were learnt, and action taken to minimise the risk of reoccurrence. Relevant policies and procedures were in place including safeguarding, raising concerns, freedom to speak up and mental capacity. Appropriate applications and authorisations were in place in relation to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People and their relatives told us they were involved in discussions around care plans and risk assessments. One person said, "I was involved in the pre-assessment." A relative said, "I was involved in care planning and risk assessments.” People also mentioned being involved in reviews and discussing any changes to their needs.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and risk management strategies supported them to provide care and support for people in a safe and supportive way. This approach enabled people to maintain their independence as far as possible.

We observed staff providing safe care and support. Mealtime support was appropriate to people’s needs and in line with care plans. We did observe some staff did not always use brakes on moving and handling equipment appropriately however we shared this feedback, and it was immediately addressed, and practice improved.

Processes were in place to assess and manage risks, with the involvement of the person and their representative if relevant and appropriate. Risks were assessed and management plans developed which were regularly reviewed.

People’s environment was clean and hygienic. People said they had no concerns around the environment, that domestic staff were available, and the home was “clean and hygienic.”

Staff had no concerns about the environment and told us they had been working hard to improve infection, prevention and control practices.

The environment was observed to be clean and hygienic with no infection prevention and control issues observed. It was noted that improvements had been made in line with the refurbishment action plan.

Processes were in place to monitor and assess the environment and equipment to identify and control any potential risks. Appropriate safety checks were completed and an environment and refurbishment plan was in place and being followed. The fire service had recently visited and as a response a more robust process for fire drills was being implemented.

There was mixed feedback from staff and relatives in relation to staffing. Some comments included, “Staff are always about” and “There’s plenty of staff” to “They could do with more staff” and “There has been agency staff, but the regular staff are very good.” People’s experience of safe care had the potential to be impacted as not all staff had received support, supervision and development in line with the providers policy. The need for staff to complete training had also been idenfied as an area for improvement.

Staff told us they were happy with the current staffing levels, although there was one comment that more staff were needed overnight. Staff said they felt well supported by the current leadership team. Leaders told us they had identified areas for improvement in relation to the provision of formal support meetings, known as supervision for staff members, the need for improvements in the completion of training and the need for more robust recording in relation to recruitment checks. Reviews of staffing levels were also being completed and action taken to further improve the numbers of staff.

Staff were visible during the inspection and spent time with people engaging in conversation as well as providing care and support. The nursing area was noticeably busier than other areas in the home and staff worked well together to meet people’s needs. We observed some areas for improvement in staff knowledge, including moving and handling and mental capacity which the leaders were responsive to.

Processes were in place to make sure staff were recruited safely and provided with appropriate support and development; however, they had not been fully implemented. The provider had identified areas for improvement in relation to recruitment checks, the completion of training and supervision and appraisal for staff. A manager checklist had been introduced in relation to recruitment however we identified some gaps in records. The leaders immediately developed a more robust system which included organisational oversight of some recruitment processes. The completion of supervision and appraisals was also an area which had recently improved however this needed to be sustained and developed. Likewise, the completion of training was slowly improving. We did not observe any impact on people’s care however the leaders agreed that sustained improvements were needed.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.