CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rookery House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Staff did not always follow safe restraint practices, and risks linked to long-term health conditions were not always identified or managed safely. Inspectors also found outstanding maintenance and cleaning issues.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- The environment did not always meet the person’s sensory and physical needs. Staff had relevant training, but did not always follow it in practice, and supervision records did not always show progress or actions.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff provided kind and compassionate care, respected privacy and dignity, and involved the person and important others in care planning and decisions.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- The person could take part in chosen activities and maintain relationships, but support plans lacked clear future goals, communication training was incomplete and staff did not always provide consistent support.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home did not have a registered manager, and its audits and systems did not effectively identify risks, monitor staff performance or evaluate progress and outcomes. Inspectors also found the manager was approachable and open to feedback.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and good medicines support, but identified safety risks, weak records and poor management systems.
This was the home’s first inspection. Inspectors visited without warning on 12 and 18 June 2023, including one visit outside normal hours. They also reviewed records remotely and spoke with staff, a relative and professionals.
The home supported one person and had capacity for one. Inspectors found caring staff, enough staff on duty, safe medicines support and good links with health professionals. However, staff did not always use safe restraint practices or follow health guidance. Some parts of the building also needed repair and cleaning.
Care plans did not clearly set out future goals, communication methods or consistent daily support. Audits and staff supervision did not give enough evidence that risks, staff performance and progress were being checked. The overall rating was Requires Improvement, with the same rating for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led. Caring was rated Good.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that staff understood the person well, used respectful language and protected their privacy and dignity.
“People received kind and compassionate care from staff who used positive, respectful language which people understood and responded well to.” from the report
Medicines support
Staff were trained and checked as competent in medicines administration, including emergency epilepsy medicine. The medicines stock matched the records.
“Staff were fully trained in the safe administration of medicines, including the use of emergency epilepsy medicine.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet the person’s needs, and recruitment checks had been completed.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Health partnerships
Staff worked with health professionals and supported access to health checks and other specialist support.
“The staff team worked closely with health professionals to seek advice on how to improve the health and care for people.” from the report
Choice and activities
The person was supported to choose how to spend their time, take part in interests and keep in touch with relatives.
“People were supported to participate in their chosen social and leisure interests on a regular basis such as swimming, bicycling and walking.” from the report
Unsafe restraint
seriousStaff did not always follow safe restraint practices. Inspectors said this increased the risk of harm and referred the matter to the local safeguarding team.
“Staff did not always follow safe restraint practices. This placed people at increased risk of harm.” from the report
Health risks not managed consistently
seriousRisks linked to long-term health conditions were not always identified or managed safely. Not all staff knew or followed current health guidance.
“Risks associated with people's long-term health conditions were not being identified and managed in a safe way.” from the report
Repairs and cleanliness
needs fixingSome water damage and other repairs were still outstanding. A kitchen fridge needed defrosting and cleaning because of heavy ice build-up.
“There was required maintenance work to the walls and pipes on the downstairs toilet and conservatory that could pose an infection risk.” from the report
Plans lacked future goals
needs fixingSupport plans did not clearly explain the person’s future aspirations, skills teaching or consistent approaches for staff to follow.
“There were no clear pathways to future goals and aspirations, including skills teaching, in people's support plans.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits did not always identify risks, staff performance concerns or environmental problems. Records also did not show enough evidence of progress and outcomes.
“Governance processes were not effective in holding staff to account, keeping people safe and protecting their rights.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection. A new manager had been appointed but had not yet applied to register.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken since the inspection to ensure restraint is always safe, and how is staff practice now checked?
- 02How are staff being shown and tested on the current health guidance for the person’s long-term conditions?
- 03Have the water damage, pipework, conservatory and fridge problems been fully repaired and cleaned?
- 04What future goals and skills-teaching plans are now in place, and how will progress be recorded?
- 05Has the new manager applied to become registered, and how are audits and staff supervision now being reviewed?
This was the first inspection of the newly registered home and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 July 2023 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 Rookery House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- July 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 August 2021.
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 Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.