CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rochester House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough skilled staff, safe medicines practice, suitable infection control and staff who understood safeguarding and people's individual risks. Staff also acted on incidents and updated safety plans.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found visible and approachable managers, effective audits and a culture where staff could raise concerns. The home involved people and relatives in planning and improving the service.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care and effective leadership, with building improvement work under way.
This was an unannounced inspection on 24 and 25 February 2022. Two inspectors spoke with four people using the service, one relative and six staff. They also reviewed care, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home supports up to 10 people with learning disabilities and/or autism. Inspectors found that people were supported to make choices, stay independent, communicate in ways that suited them and take part in activities they enjoyed. Staff understood people's needs and knew how to keep them safe.
Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. These ratings were unchanged from the previous inspection. The inspection was carried out because of concerns about the environment and the management of people's specific risks. Inspectors found action plans and improvement work in place, and said they would continue to monitor the home.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices about their rooms, activities and daily lives. The home helped people pursue personal goals, including volunteering and attending activities outside the home.
“People had choice about their living environment and were able to personalise their rooms.” from the report
Communication support
Staff adapted how they communicated, including using Makaton, gestures, body language, words, pictures and symbols. Inspectors saw staff understand and respond to people's needs.
“One person used Makaton to communicate with staff. We observed staff communicating in Makaton and they were able to understand what the person needed.” from the report
Safe staffing
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, including one-to-one support for activities and visits. Recruitment and induction processes promoted safety.
“The service had enough staff, including for one-to-one support for people to take part in activities and visits how and when they wanted.” from the report
Good oversight
Managers were visible and approachable. Audits identified actions, and staff training covered areas such as autism, mental capacity, medicines and reducing inappropriate medication.
“Governance processes were effective and helped hold staff to account, keep people safe, protect people's rights and provide good quality care.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What improvement work is still planned for the building, and what has been completed since the inspection?
- 02How will you make sure my relative's personal emergency evacuation plan stays up to date?
- 03How would you support my relative's specific communication needs, including any use of Makaton, pictures or symbols?
- 04How will you manage any choking risk or modified diet needs?
- 05What one-to-one activities and community visits could my relative take part in?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led because of concerns about the environment and people's specific risks; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not rated in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 March 2022 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.
What inspectors found, August 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
The inspection took place on 12 June 2018 and was announced at short notice. One inspector and an expert by experience visited. They spoke with three people, a relative and five staff members. They also observed care and looked at care records, staff files, medicines, complaints, incidents and quality checks.
The inspectors found that people were safe and that risks, medicines, staffing and infection control were managed well. Staff had suitable training and support. People received enough to eat and drink and were supported with their health needs.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff supported communication in different ways, encouraged activities and independence, and involved people and relatives in care reviews. The home had detailed care plans, an accessible complaints process and regular checks on the quality of care.
The home was rated Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. It was also rated Good at the previous inspection on 5 March 2016. The report says there was a change in the registered manager, but the service continued to be well-led.
Safe medicines and staffing
The home had systems for ordering, storing, giving and recording medicines. Staffing was planned around people's assessed needs, and recruitment checks had been completed.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff, who had been recruited safely, to support people safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their privacy, dignity, choices and interests. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible.
“Staff actively engaged with people and interacted with them positively.” from the report
Choice of activities
Activities reflected people's interests and were introduced in a way that considered their comfort and risks. People were supported to take part and avoid social isolation.
“The activities people were involved in were tailored to their choice and lifestyle to encourage participation and reduce social isolation.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider and managers checked the quality of care through audits, feedback, meetings and oversight systems. They used feedback to plan improvements.
“The provider proactively sought people's views and took action to improve their experiences.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you assess whether the current staffing levels still match my relative's needs?
- 02How would you communicate with my relative using their preferred signs, pictures or other methods?
- 03How are activities chosen and adapted if my relative is uncomfortable or their needs change?
- 04How are relatives involved in care plan reviews and decisions about changing needs?
- 05Has the planned sensory room been installed, and what feedback led to its design?
This was a planned inspection of the overall service and covered all five CQC areas, including care, premises, staffing, records and quality monitoring. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 August 2018 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 Rochester House
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 December 2010.
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
91 live-in carers within about an hour of Medway
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. 78 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.