CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rockingham House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found detailed risk plans, enough staff, safe medicines systems and suitable recruitment checks. Staff had safeguarding training and accidents were reviewed for lessons.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed with families and staff received induction, training and supervision. People were supported with food, healthcare, social care professionals and decisions under the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described as kind and caring. People were involved in decisions, and their privacy, dignity, communication and personal choices were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reflected people's lifestyles, beliefs, communication needs and activities. The home had systems for complaints and responded to changes in behaviour or signs of unhappiness.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was described as well managed, with approachable leadership, staff supervision, feedback systems and regular checks on care plans and quality.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Rockingham House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was a planned inspection visit on 3 December 2018. One inspector reviewed records, toured the home and spoke with relatives, an advocate and staff. Two care plans were checked.
Inspectors found that people were safe. Risks, medicines, staffing, recruitment and infection control were managed well. Staff were trained to safeguard people, and accidents and incidents were reviewed for learning.
Care was tailored to people's needs, choices and communication methods. Staff supported people with food, healthcare, activities and decision-making. Inspectors also found kind relationships, respect for privacy and good support for people's independence.
All five ratings were Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspection found good standards at that time, but it is not a guarantee that every experience will be perfect.
Detailed safety planning
Risks were reviewed regularly and plans aimed to keep people safe while allowing as much freedom and independence as possible.
“There were detailed risk management plans to identify all the risks present within a person's life.” from the report
Personalised communication
Staff used pictorial schedules, social stories and other communication tools to help people understand routines, tasks and appointments.
“We saw detailed communication plans and tools that were tailored to meet each person's communication needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found positive relationships between people and staff. Staff supported choices and protected privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Good oversight
The manager used audits, feedback, care plan reviews and incident reviews to improve support. Staff said they felt listened to and supported.
“Effective systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided through a range of internal checks and audits.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and update my relative's risk plans if their needs or behaviour changed?
- 02How would you support my relative to communicate choices, anxieties or complaints?
- 03What specialist training do staff have for my relative's needs, and how is their competence checked?
- 04How would you support my relative to attend healthcare appointments and take part in activities they enjoy?
- 05How are families involved in reviewing care plans, behaviour plans and decisions made in their relative's best interests?
This planned inspection covered the premises and care, and considered all five CQC questions; two people were present, two care plans were reviewed, and some people could not speak directly with the inspector. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 December 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.
What inspectors found, December 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found that earlier problems with managing known risks had been addressed.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 11 November 2016. It checked whether improvements had been made after a comprehensive inspection in June 2016 found that staff did not always follow people's risk plans.
Inspectors found that risks were reviewed regularly and staff understood and followed the care plans. They found safe medicines management, enough suitable staff, appropriate training and proper recruitment checks.
The overall rating was Good and the Safe question was also rated Good. This report looked mainly at improvements to keeping people safe, rather than carrying out a full new inspection of every area.
Risk management
People's risks were reviewed and staff followed the plans designed to keep them safe. The home also worked with health and social care professionals.
“People's risks were assessed and effective measures were implemented to manage their identified risks.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines records were well maintained, audits were carried out and staff were trained and checked before giving medicines independently.
“People's medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines at the right time.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks helped protect people from unsuitable staff.
“People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff that were experienced and supported to carry out their roles” from the report
Safeguarding
Staff knew how to recognise possible harm and what action to take. They had received safeguarding training and felt confident using it.
“All staff had received training in how to safeguard people from harm and were confident in applying the learning from this training.” from the report
Recent history of risk-plan failures
seriousAt the June 2016 inspection, staff did not always follow people's risk plans and this put people at risk of harm. The November inspection found improvements, but families may want to ask how these changes are being maintained.
“we found that staff were not always aware of the plans of care that had been developed to mitigate known risks to people which had resulted in people being placed at the risk of harm.” from the report
- 01How do you check that staff continue to follow each person's individual risk plan?
- 02What happens if a person's risks or needs change?
- 03How often are medicines records and medicines systems audited?
- 04How do you make sure there are enough staff to provide the one-to-one support people need?
- 05How is the service being overseen while a permanent manager is recruited?
This was an unannounced focused inspection checking improvements to how people were protected from known risks; it did not provide new ratings for the other four questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 December 2016 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 Rockingham House
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 July 2015.
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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of North Northamptonshire
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 £1,260 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
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.