CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rose Belle
Not yet rated: the CQC has not published a rated inspection for this home, which is usual for a new registration.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection controls but some gaps in visitor hygiene and waste handling.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 4 March 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found systems for testing, temperature checks, personal protective equipment, social distancing and managing outbreaks. The home was visibly clean and had increased cleaning of frequently touched areas.
There were some gaps. Hand sanitiser was not available at the entrance, not all visitor procedures were followed, some bins had no lids and red bags for soiled laundry were not available. Some repairs were also needed because they made cleaning more difficult.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a rated judgement about the other care questions.
COVID-19 controls
The home had arrangements for testing, monitoring symptoms, separating people during an outbreak and following social distancing guidance.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Cleaning
The home was visibly clean and had increased cleaning of frequently touched areas.
“The service was visibly clean. The provider had increased cleaning in the service including high touch areas such as door handles and light switches.” from the report
PPE and testing
Inspectors were assured that PPE was used safely and that testing was available for people living in the home and staff.
“We were assured that the provider was accessing testing for people using the service and staff.” from the report
Monitoring and audits
Daily temperature checks and regular audits were used to monitor health and infection control arrangements.
“Regular audits were undertaken on the effectiveness of cleaning and infection control measures.” from the report
Visitor hygiene
needs fixingThere was no hand sanitiser at the entrance, and not all visitor procedures were being followed.
“Whilst the service had the procedures in place for visitors within the home, there was no hand sanitiser at the entrance and not all procedures were being followed.” from the report
Waste and laundry handling
needs fixingSome waste bins did not have lids, and red bags for separating soiled laundry were not available. The provider was signposted to guidance and later said these processes had been changed.
“There were systems in place to promote safe hygiene practice however waste bins did not all have lids. Red bags were not available to ensure adequate separation of soiled laundry.” from the report
Repairs affecting cleaning
minorSome areas needed repair, which made cleaning more difficult. The provider said repairs were planned when it was safe to do them.
“Some areas of the service needed repair which made cleaning more difficult.” from the report
- 01Has hand sanitiser now been provided at the entrance?
- 02How do you make sure all visitor procedures are followed?
- 03Do all waste bins now have lids, and are red bags available for soiled laundry?
- 04Have the repairs that made cleaning more difficult been completed?
- 05What infection control audits are now carried out, and what happens when they identify a problem?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; the other care questions were not assessed and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 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.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but weaknesses in medicines management, fire drill records and quality monitoring.
This was an unannounced inspection on 19 December 2019. One inspector spoke with two people living in the home and four staff. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, policies and quality records.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff understood people's needs and supported choice, independence, activities and contact with family. The home was clean, there were enough trained staff, and people received their medicines as prescribed.
Inspectors found some safety and management problems. Handwritten medicines records were not always checked by a second person, some medicines had not been dated when opened, fire drills were not recorded, and audits did not identify or address issues consistently.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led had fallen from Good at the previous inspection, while the other three ratings stayed Good.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw compassionate interactions and found that staff respected people's choices, privacy and dignity.
“Each interaction we saw was compassionate and understanding, with staff and people engaging in conversations that interested people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans gave staff detailed information about individual needs, preferences and ways to reduce anxiety.
“Records used to support people were specific to each person's individual needs and went into detail as to how those needs should be met.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to choose how they spent their time, use parts of the home independently and take part in activities they enjoyed.
“The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion.” from the report
Trained staff and clean home
There were enough suitably recruited staff, and staff had training and competency checks. Inspectors found the home clean and free from odours.
“People were supported by enough suitably trained staff who knew how to keep people safe.” from the report
Medicines records and storage
seriousHandwritten medicines records were not always signed or checked by a second person. Some bottles and creams were not dated when opened, and stock counts on sticky labels created a risk of errors.
“When handwritten records are not signed and verified by a second staff member there is a risk they could be transcribed incorrectly and people could have their medicines administered wrongly.” from the report
Fire drill records
needs fixingThe home did not have records showing that fire drills had been carried out in line with its procedure. Staff understood the emergency arrangements, but the records were not available.
“There were not any records for fire drills which showed the home's procedure had been followed.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
needs fixingAudits were limited and not frequent enough. They did not consistently identify concerns about medicines, fire evacuation, incidents or care plan records.
“Audits used to measure the safety and quality of services provided were minimal and in general were not frequent enough to drive improvement in a timely way.” from the report
Incidents not analysed for patterns
minorStaff recorded incidents and took action for individuals, but the home did not analyse them at service level to identify themes or trends.
“These were not analysed at service level but we saw action taken to support individuals.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure every handwritten medicines record is signed and checked by a second staff member?
- 02How do you now check that medicines are dated when opened and that stock levels are counted accurately?
- 03When was the most recent fire drill, and can you show us the records of the drill and any actions taken?
- 04How often are care plans, medicines and incident records now audited, and how are problems followed up?
- 05What improvements have been made since the previous Good rating, particularly in Safe and Well-led?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home and its overall quality, covering all five CQC questions; the report reviewed selected care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 March 2020 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 Rose Belle
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 November 2010.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.