CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rockfield Residential
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection-control arrangements, including visitors, PPE, hygiene and visits. They found that decisions about isolation and testing were not always recorded.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and reviewed. Staff had completed mental health training, received regular supervision, and supported people with independence, food and healthcare.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Regular audits and action plans were in place. People and staff were asked for feedback, and the manager had created an open and positive culture.
What inspectors found, August 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found improved care and management, but infection-control records and some parts of the building still needed attention.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 10 June 2021. One inspector visited the home, spoke with people, staff and managers, reviewed care records and audits, and sought feedback from professionals and relatives.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective and Well-led were rated Good. Inspectors found improvements since the previous inspection, including better staff training, support for decision-making, and stronger quality checks.
Safe was inspected but not rated. Infection-control arrangements were mostly in place, but some decisions about isolation and testing were not recorded. The provider took action to address this. Some carpets and paintwork were old and worn, although a renewal plan was in place.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and had built positive relationships with a consistent staff team.
“People felt safe living at Rockfield Residential and had built positive relationships with a consistent staff team.” from the report
Respect for choices
The home followed legal rules about consent and decision-making. People were supported to make everyday choices and remain as independent as possible.
“The principles of the MCA were now being followed.” from the report
Staff support
Staff had completed training in mental health conditions and received regular one-to-one supervision.
“Staff were supported through regular one to one supervision meetings.” from the report
Better oversight
The home had introduced regular audits and clear action plans when problems were found.
“Robust quality assurance processes were now in place and completed on a regular basis.” from the report
Flexible meals
People could choose what to eat and when to eat, while staff promoted a healthy balanced diet.
“People were able to choose what meals they wanted, and these were provided at flexible times to accommodate people's daily routines.” from the report
Infection-control records
needs fixingThe home had put controls in place when people refused to isolate or have regular tests, but these decisions were not always written down.
“Where new admissions to the service had refused to isolate, control measures were put in place, but this was not recorded.” from the report
Older parts of the building
minorSome carpets and paintwork were old and worn. A refurbishment plan existed, but the work had been delayed by COVID-19 restrictions.
“Further renewal work was needed; some areas of the service such as carpets and paintwork were old and worn.” from the report
Further medical-condition training
minorStaff had completed mental health training, but more training linked to people's specific medical conditions was still planned.
“A training manager had been appointed and plans were in place for all staff to complete training specific to people's medical conditions.” from the report
- 01Have all staff now completed the training specific to the medical conditions of people living here?
- 02How do you record decisions when someone refuses to isolate or take regular infection tests?
- 03What work has been completed on the worn carpets and paintwork, and what remains in the refurbishment plan?
- 04How do you check that regular audits lead to improvements when shortfalls are found?
- 05How are people involved in decisions about their care, meals and the home environment?
This was a focused inspection of Effective and Well-led, with infection prevention and control checked under Safe; the other ratings were carried forward from the 2019 comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 August 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.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but improvements were still needed in effectiveness and leadership.
This was an unannounced inspection on 31 July 2019. One inspector spoke with people and staff, observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment, training and quality records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring and Responsive. People said they felt safe and liked living there. Inspectors found caring relationships, enough staff, safe medicines practice and personalised support.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective and Well-led. Mental Capacity Act decisions were not always handled correctly, specialist mental health training was lacking and quality checks did not identify every shortfall.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement for the second consecutive inspection. Improvements had been made since the previous inspection, and the home was no longer in breach of the earlier regulations on recruitment and governance. CQC said it would monitor progress and return.
Safe staffing and recruitment
The home had improved its recruitment process and inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs.
“A safe recruitment procedure was now in place and followed. This ensured suitable staff were employed.” from the report
Medicines were managed safely
Medicines were stored, given and recorded appropriately. Staff training and competency checks were in place.
“Medicines were stored, administered and recorded appropriately.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive relationships between people and staff. People were offered choices and supported to keep their privacy and independence.
“There was a relaxed atmosphere; a positive, caring relationships existed between people and staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences, and people were supported to take part in activities and access the local community.
“Care plans contained detailed information about people's likes, dislikes and preferences.” from the report
Specialist mental health training
needs fixingStaff had basic training but had not received training linked to people's specific health conditions, including mental health. Inspectors recommended further action.
“However, staff had not received training in relation to people's specific health conditions, for example, mental health.” from the report
Mental Capacity Act decisions
needs fixingThe principles of the Mental Capacity Act were not always followed. One best interest decision was made for a person who had capacity, although it was removed after inspectors raised it.
“The principles of the MCA had not always been followed.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingAudits and action plans had improved, but they did not identify every shortfall. Inspectors gave damaged windows and incorrect Mental Capacity Act practice as examples.
“However, they were not always effective in highlighting all shortfalls and some needed further development.” from the report
Some building areas needed updating
minorSome paintwork, carpets and wallpaper were worn. Toilet seats were heavily stained, and some fire drills were not recorded.
“There were areas where paintwork was chipped making it harder to clean and toilet seats that were heavily stained.” from the report
- 01What specialist mental health training have staff completed since this inspection, and how is their understanding checked?
- 02How do you now make sure Mental Capacity Act and best interest decisions are legally correct?
- 03What audits are currently used to find problems with care, safety and the building, and who checks that actions are completed?
- 04Has the manager completed registration with CQC, and what arrangements are in place while this is being processed?
- 05What work has been completed on the worn carpets, wallpaper, paintwork and stained toilet seats?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care, with checks of selected records and observations. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 September 2019 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 Rockfield Residential
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 November 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.