CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rosclare Residential Home Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but weaknesses in safety, consent records, the building and quality checks.
This was an unannounced routine inspection on 16 March 2022. Two inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care records, staff files, incident and complaints records, training information and quality checks.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were also rated Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good.
Inspectors found enough staff and better handling of accidents and safeguarding concerns. People were treated with dignity, their care plans reflected their needs, and complaints were investigated. However, risk assessments, medicines records and some mental capacity decisions were not always clear or complete.
The building needed refurbishment and better hygiene. Activities did not always meet people's social needs. The home had breached Regulation 17 on good governance, because its quality checks did not reliably identify and fix problems.
Enough staff
Staffing had improved since the previous inspection. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's basic care needs.
“There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people's basic needs.” from the report
Kind and dignified care
People and relatives described staff as caring. Staff supported people's dignity, choices, cultural needs and independence.
“People were treated well by the staff that cared for them.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home had improved how it monitored and analysed accidents and incidents. Patterns were shared with health professionals so action could be taken.
“The service now appropriately monitored and analysed incidents and accidents to identify any trends or patterns.” from the report
Food and healthcare
The chef knew people's dietary needs and offered alternatives. The home also made referrals to healthcare professionals when needed.
“People's specific dietary requirements were catered for by the chef who knew people's needs well.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
seriousThe home's quality checks did not identify or address all the improvements needed. This included risk assessments and cleanliness and hygiene issues.
“Quality assurance systems were not always effective.” from the report
Risk and medicines records
seriousRisk assessments did not always explain clearly what staff should do to reduce risks. Staff did not always record why PRN medicines were given on each occasion.
“We identified that staff did not always record the reason for administration of PRN 'as required' medicines on each specific occasion.” from the report
Mental capacity records
seriousSome best-interests decisions were not clearly recorded. This related to measures including bed rails and covert medicines.
“Best interests decisions were not always clearly documented.” from the report
Building and hygiene
needs fixingThe home needed refurbishment and redecoration. Inspectors also found that cleanliness and hygiene needed improvement.
“The home was in need of refurbishment and redecoration; which the registered manager had planned to commence in the coming weeks.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingPeople did not always have enough activities to meet their social needs. There was no activities worker at the time of the inspection.
“People did not always have access to activities that met their social needs.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make risk assessments more specific, and can we see how staff are told to reduce each person's risks?
- 02How are PRN medicines recorded now, including the reason each dose is given?
- 03How are best-interests decisions for bed rails, covert medicines or other restrictions recorded and reviewed?
- 04What refurbishment and hygiene work has been completed since the inspection?
- 05What activities are now available, and who is responsible for making sure people are not socially isolated?
This was an unannounced routine inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control measures; the report also followed up actions from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 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.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Rosclare Residential Home Limited was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control, but audit records needed improvement.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 4 February 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 outbreak, rather than giving a full rating of the home.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing and outbreaks safely. Staff had infection-control training and were observed following national protective equipment guidance.
The home used window and garden visits to support family contact while visitors were not allowed inside. Inspectors noted that the building made social distancing more difficult and discussed improving how infection-control audit checks were recorded.
Regular COVID-19 testing
People and staff took part in whole-home testing. People were routinely tested every four weeks or as required, and staff were tested weekly, with additional rapid testing.
“People living in the home were routinely tested for COVID-19 every four weeks or as required with staff being tested once weekly.” from the report
Safe admissions
New admissions required a negative COVID-19 test and people were supported to self-isolate after arriving.
“People were only being admitted to Rosclare Residential Home following a negative COVID-19 test.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff had infection-control and COVID-19 training. Inspectors saw them following national protective equipment guidance.
“We observed staff following national PPE guidance.” from the report
Family contact arrangements
Although visitors were not allowed inside during the outbreak, the home had used window and garden visits to help people stay in contact with family and friends.
“These included window and garden visits.” from the report
Cleaning arrangements
The home carried out regular cleaning and had a deep-cleaning schedule to reduce infection risks.
“Regular cleaning was undertaken to minimise the risk of infection with a deep cleaning schedule also in place.” from the report
Audit records needed improvement
needs fixingThe home monitored and audited infection-control measures, but inspectors said the records did not fully document the checks being carried out.
“We discussed making improvements to the audit processes in place to fully document the checks taking place.” from the report
Social distancing was difficult
minorThe age and layout of the building made social distancing more difficult. During the outbreak, people were being isolated in their rooms.
“The age and layout of the home made social distancing more problematic.” from the report
- 01How are infection-control audit checks now recorded, following the inspectors' discussion about improving documentation?
- 02How are visits with family and friends currently arranged?
- 03How do you manage social distancing in the building, given the inspectors' concerns about its age and layout?
- 04How often are people living here and staff tested for COVID-19 now?
- 05What happens when someone is admitted, including testing and self-isolation?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 outbreak; it did not assess the other four key questions or provide an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 March 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.
Every inspection of Rosclare Residential Home Limited
8 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- April 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Rosclare Residential Home Limited →
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Rosclare Residential Home Limited →
- June 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 January 2012.
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 Kingston upon Thames
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. 82 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“We cannot speak highly enough of the care that Angelique gave, and would recommend her to anyone else needing a live-in carer.”
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.