CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rosalee House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, safe medicines, enough staff and appropriate safeguarding arrangements. Infection prevention and control measures were also found to be in place.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Some staff had not completed mandatory training or refresher courses, including moving and handling, safeguarding and first aid. Some staff had also fallen below the expected competency level.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described staff as kind and friendly. Inspectors saw positive relationships and found that people's privacy, dignity, choices and independence were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and included people's support needs and preferences. People were supported with activities, communication and access to relationships and the community.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Audits and feedback systems were in place, but management oversight of staff training and competence was not strong enough. Managers said further training would be booked and staff would be supported to become competent.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but staff training and oversight needed improvement.
This was the home's first inspection since it registered. The visit was unannounced and took place on 30 March 2022. One inspector spoke with people and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, medicine records, training records and quality checks.
Inspectors rated the home Good for safe, caring and responsive care. They found suitable risk assessments, safe medicines, enough staff, kind relationships, respect for privacy and dignity, personalised care plans, activities and support to maintain relationships.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for effective care because some staff had not completed essential training or achieved the expected competency level. It was also rated Requires Improvement for being well-led because managers did not have strong enough oversight of training and staff competence.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. The provider had breached Regulation 18 about staff training. The CQC asked for an action plan and said it would monitor progress with the provider and local authority.
Risk management
Care plans included assessments for risks such as self-neglect, falls, choking and health conditions. These assessments gave staff guidance on what to do if someone's health deteriorated.
“Sufficient risk assessments were in place to ensure people received safe care.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were administered as prescribed, records were accurate and medicines were securely stored. Staff had received medicines training.
“Medicine Administration Records showed that medicines were administered as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive relationships between staff and people. Staff respected privacy and dignity and encouraged people to make choices and remain independent.
“We observed that staff had a positive relationship with people and spoke to them in a caring way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's individual needs, communication and interests. People were supported to take part in activities such as walks, games and visits to the park.
“Care plans were personalised and included information on how to support people in a number of areas such as personal care, nutrition and activities.” from the report
Essential staff training
seriousSome staff had not completed mandatory training and refresher courses in important areas. Some had not reached the expected pass mark, and further training had not yet been booked.
“Staff had not completed mandatory training and refresher courses to perform their roles effectively such as with moving & handling, safeguarding and first aid.” from the report
Management oversight
needs fixingThe systems for checking staff training and competence were not robust enough. This was linked to the breach of Regulation 18.
“There was a lack of oversight as some staff fell below expected competency levels when their competency was checked following the completion of training.” from the report
- 01Have all staff now completed the mandatory training identified in the report, including moving and handling, safeguarding and first aid?
- 02How do you check that staff have reached the required competency level after training?
- 03What action plan did you send to the CQC, and what improvements have been completed?
- 04How often do managers review training records and follow up staff whose training or competency is not up to date?
- 05How will you keep us informed about progress on the Regulation 18 breach?
This was the first full inspection of the newly registered home and covered all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 April 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.
Every inspection of Rosalee House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- April 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 April 2020.
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 Redbridge
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. 75 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.