CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rookhurst Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks were identified and reviewed, medicines were managed safely and staff had safeguarding training. However, staffing levels were not consistently maintained on Mondays in line with people's assessed needs.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training in areas linked to people's needs, including autism, learning disability, communication and seizure management. People were supported with healthcare, meals, independence and day-to-day choices.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, compassionate and respectful. People were involved in their care, supported to express themselves and encouraged to maintain their identity, privacy and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans contained detailed information about people's needs, preferences, communication and distress signs. People were supported to take part in activities, keep in touch with relatives and access their local community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive, open culture and effective audits. Records had improved since 2016, when the Well-led area was rated Requires Improvement because accurate records had not been maintained.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with staffing levels not always meeting the assessed need on Mondays.
This was an unannounced, planned comprehensive inspection on 8 April 2019. One inspector visited the home and spoke with people, staff, relatives, a healthcare professional and managers. They also checked care records, medicines, accidents, complaints, staff recruitment, training and quality audits.
Six people were living at the home. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and involved in decisions about their care. Staff knew people well and supported them to be independent, take part in activities and use local services.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home was last rated Good in 2016. Since then, inspectors found that earlier concerns about inaccurate records had been addressed and the Well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people very well and treated them with warmth, dignity and respect. People were supported to express their identity, preferences and faith.
“We observed that staff were kind and caring with people and responsive to their needs.” from the report
Support for independence
People made daily choices and were supported to develop skills, prepare meals and take part in community activities.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were organised and staff received training and competency checks. The home was also following guidance aimed at reducing unnecessary medicines for people with learning disabilities.
“Medicines systems were organised and people were receiving their medicines when they should.” from the report
Good knowledge of people's needs
Care plans included people's histories, preferences, communication methods and signs of distress. Staff could explain how they supported people using this information.
“Staff knew people extremely well, and what approaches were effective with them, which added to the effectiveness of the service.” from the report
Monday staffing levels
needs fixingStaffing was usually at the assessed level, but on Mondays only two support workers were deployed when three were needed. Staff said this could be difficult when two people required one-to-one support.
“Whilst the assessed staffing levels was not consistently maintained. Action was being taken to ensure staffing levels were consistently maintained in line with people's assessed need.” from the report
Complaints from neighbours
minorThe provider had received two complaints from local neighbours since the previous inspection. The manager was working with the neighbours to address them.
“Since the previous inspection in 2016, the provider had received two complaints from local neighbours.” from the report
End of life training
minorNo one was receiving end of life care during the inspection. End of life care plans were in place, but the home was still sourcing relevant training for staff.
“The registered manager was in the processing of sourcing end of life training from the local hospice for staff members.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure three support workers are available on Mondays when people need one-to-one support?
- 02What happened after the two complaints from local neighbours, and have those concerns now been resolved?
- 03Has end of life training from the local hospice now been arranged for staff?
- 04How are people and their families involved when care plans are reviewed, including plans about sex and relationships?
- 05How do you check that care records remain accurate and reflect people's current needs?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC areas, and the premises and care provided were both looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 May 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.
What inspectors found, October 2016
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the home needed to improve its management records.
Inspectors visited without notice on 10 and 11 August 2016. They reviewed records, medicines, staff files, training, complaints, accidents, audits and support plans. They spoke with people, a relative, staff, managers and a social care professional, and observed care in shared areas.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicine handling, appropriate training, access to health professionals and kind support. People were involved in choices such as meals and activities, and staff knew their needs and interests.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being well-led. Records did not always show clearly how person-centred care was provided, and some incident and activity records were incomplete. There was no registered manager, although an acting manager had applied for registration. This was a clear improvement from the previous inspection, when all five areas were rated Requires Improvement.
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, and recruitment checks were in place. Medicines were stored, given, recorded and disposed of safely.
“There were enough staff working in the home during the day and night to meet people's needs safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their privacy, dignity, choices and independence. Inspectors saw a calm and relaxed atmosphere.
“People were treated with warmth, kindness and respect.” from the report
Health and staff skills
People were supported to attend health appointments and staff received training and supervision relevant to people's needs.
“People were supported to maintain good health and received on-going healthcare support.” from the report
Support plans
Plans contained useful guidance about health needs, routines, communication and behaviours that could challenge others.
“Support plans contained detailed guidance to ensure staff knew how to meet people's needs.” from the report
Involvement in choices
People were involved in menu planning and used picture cards to help make choices. Staff supported people to take part in activities they chose.
“People were involved in the running of their home.” from the report
Incomplete records
needs fixingRecords did not always explain how people's choices were made, what they had done or how staff knew an activity had gone well. Two incidents were not recorded consistently.
“Record keeping did not always demonstrate the person centred care carried out by staff.” from the report
Limited activities during staff induction
needs fixingOne person had not gone out as often as they wanted while newer staff built confidence supporting people outside the home. The report says the range and variety of activities should increase.
“In the short term staff told us that this had meant that one person in particular had not gone out as often as they would have liked” from the report
Fire drills
needs fixingFire safety checks were in place, but drills had not been carried out as often as the home's policy required. The home said unannounced drills would be arranged after the inspection.
“drills were not carried out in line with the home's policy.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThe home had been without a registered manager since November 2015. An acting manager had applied for registration at the time of the inspection.
“The home has been without a registered manager since November 2015.” from the report
- 01How do you now record people's choices, progress and enjoyment of activities?
- 02What checks make sure all accidents and incidents are recorded correctly and followed up?
- 03Has the acting manager's application to become registered been completed?
- 04How often are fire drills now carried out, including scenarios involving people who need help?
- 05What activities outside the home are currently available, and how do you make sure each person's preferred activities happen?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five rating areas and checking improvements required after the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 October 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 Rookhurst Lodge
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 May 2011.
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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.