CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at La Rosa 2
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People were not always protected from avoidable harm. Inspectors found problems with fire safety, environmental risks, medicines storage and infection prevention and control, although staffing, safeguarding systems and medicines records had some strengths.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- People's care and support generally reflected their assessed needs, and staff had relevant training. However, the home's physical environment was not properly maintained.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported independence and involved people in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised, up to date and regularly reviewed. People were supported with communication, activities, relationships and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management checks did not identify or address several safety and quality problems. There was no manager registered with the CQC, and some safeguarding incidents had not been reported to the CQC without delay.
What inspectors found, December 2021
La Rosa 2 rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but safety, maintenance, medicines and management needed urgent improvement.
The inspection took place over two days, with the first day unannounced. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, staff and the owner, and reviewed care plans, staff records, medicines records and management documents.
People were generally treated with kindness and respect. Care plans were personalised and up to date. People were supported with food, healthcare, activities, independence and contact with family and friends. The caring and responsive parts of the service were rated Good.
Inspectors found people had been placed at risk of avoidable harm. Problems included faulty fire doors, uncovered radiators, old electrical checks, unsafe medicines storage, gaps in infection control practice and poor environmental maintenance.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were also rated Requires Improvement. The provider had to send an action plan, and the CQC said it would monitor progress and return to inspect again.
Kind and respectful care
People described staff positively, and inspectors observed warm and respectful interactions. Staff respected privacy, dignity, equality and diversity.
“Interactions between people living in the care home and staff were characterised by warmth and kindness, and showed they knew each other well.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans described people's needs, preferences, strengths and communication needs. They were reviewed and updated as people's needs changed.
“People's care plans were up to date, personalised and contained detailed information about their strengths, likes and dislikes, and how they preferred staff to meet their personal, emotional and health care needs.” from the report
Complaints were handled
People knew how to raise concerns. Complaints were recorded, responded to and used to identify improvements.
“Complaints were logged, responded to appropriately and actions were identified to improve the service.” from the report
Fire and environmental safety
seriousSome fire-resistant doors did not close properly. Radiators were not covered, electrical installations had not been checked for over six years, and the building had several maintenance defects.
“fire resistant doors did not always automatically close into their frame when released” from the report
Medicines storage
seriousMedicines cabinets and the medicines fridge were sometimes left unlocked, with keys left in the cabinet door. This meant unauthorised people might have accessed medicines.
“we observed several instances of staff leaving keys in the medicines cabinet door and the medicines fridge unlocked” from the report
Infection control
seriousVisitors were not always checked for a recent negative COVID-19 test and normal temperature. Staff had not received further infection control, PPE or COVID-19 training since the start of the pandemic.
“Staff failed to always check visitors to the care home had an up to date negative COVID-19 test and had a normal temperature” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousThe provider's checks did not identify or act on several problems involving safety, maintenance, medicines, infection control, training and reporting incidents.
“The provider did not always operate their governance systems effectively.” from the report
Repairs needed
needs fixingThe home was adapted to meet people's needs, but its interior was not maintained properly. The provider agreed to complete outstanding repairs by the end of 2021.
“the care homes physical environment and interior décor was not being appropriately maintained.” from the report
- 01Have all the faulty fire-resistant doors been repaired and tested so they close properly?
- 02How are medicines kept locked and checked when staff are not in the office?
- 03What infection control, PPE and COVID-19 training have staff completed since this inspection?
- 04Has a suitably competent manager been appointed and registered with the CQC?
- 05How are safeguarding incidents now reported to the CQC without delay and followed up through management checks?
This was a planned comprehensive inspection covering all five rating areas, and it also examined the home's infection prevention and control arrangements. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 December 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of La Rosa 2
2 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- December 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 June 2020.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Lambeth
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,250 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“She is just one of those people that looks around, sees what needs to be done and does it.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.