CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rose Cottage
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found medicines, risk assessments, infection control, staffing and recruitment had improved and were safe. Safeguarding procedures and accident and incident reviews were also in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training needed for their roles. People received suitable food and drink, their care needs were assessed and reviewed, and consent and best-interest processes were recorded.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this follow-up. The report says ratings for key questions not inspected were carried over from the last inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this follow-up. The report says ratings for key questions not inspected were carried over from the last inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found improved quality checks, clear action plans and effective leadership from the provider and new manager. Feedback from people, relatives and staff was positive.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Rated Good; inspectors found major improvements in safety, care and management, and the home is no longer in special measures.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection after the home was rated Inadequate in July 2023 and placed in special measures. Inspectors visited on 24 and 31 January 2024. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed, staffing had improved, and recruitment checks were now robust. They also found accurate care records, suitable training, better cleanliness, improved food and drink arrangements, and kind and respectful care.
The provider had addressed the breaches found at the previous inspection. The overall rating improved from Inadequate to Good, and the home was no longer in breach of regulations or in special measures.
Safer medicines
Medicines records were accurate, storage was safe and staff administering medicines were trained and competent.
“Medicines were safely managed and administered in a kind and respectful way.” from the report
Improved staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks had also improved.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe, and we saw a high staff presence in communal areas.” from the report
Cleaner home
The home had improved its cleaning systems and was described as clean, well maintained and welcoming.
“The provider had robust cleaning schedules in place which had improved the homes cleanliness, with no malodours present.” from the report
Better oversight
The provider and manager had introduced quality checks that identified problems and recorded actions to address them.
“Quality assurance systems had been improved and these were effective in identifying shortfalls and had clear action plans for addressing and improving the quality in the service.” from the report
New management arrangement
minorThere was no registered manager at the inspection. The new manager had only been in post for four weeks, although inspectors found effective leadership during the visit.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and what is the progress towards having a registered manager?
- 02How do you now check that staffing levels continue to match people's needs?
- 03How often are medicines audits completed, and what happens if an error or missing record is found?
- 04How will you make sure the new quality assurance systems continue to identify and fix shortfalls?
- 05How are people's care records and risk assessments kept up to date as their needs change?
This was a follow-up inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; the report says ratings for key questions not inspected were carried over from the last inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 February 2024 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, August 2023
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found people at risk because safety, staffing, medicines and management systems were not reliable.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection. Inspectors visited on 31 May and 7 June 2023, with inspection activity continuing until 20 June. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
Inspectors found serious problems with safety. Risks were not always assessed or managed, medicines records were incomplete, some areas were unclean, staffing levels were not enough, and recruitment checks were incomplete. Staff training also had gaps. People were not always treated with dignity, and some care records did not give staff enough information.
The home was rated Inadequate overall. Safe and well-led were rated Inadequate, while effective was rated Requires Improvement. This was worse than the previous Requires Improvement rating, and the home remained in breach of regulations. It was placed in special measures, meaning CQC will monitor it closely and normally reinspect within six months.
Safeguarding referrals
The report says safeguarding systems were in place and incidents had been referred to the local authority and CQC.
“Records showed safeguarding incidents had been referred to the local authority safeguarding team and notified to CQC.” from the report
Food and drink choices
Most people were offered choices about meals and drinks, and the dining experience had improved. One person's intake was still not sufficient.
“The food looked appetising and everyone was given a choice about what they wanted to eat and drink and how much.” from the report
Kind interactions
People and relatives were generally positive about the home. Inspectors saw some kind and caring interactions and some activities.
“People and relatives were generally positive about the service. Staff were described as kind and caring.” from the report
Incident monitoring
Accident and incident analysis had improved, with trends considered and actions recorded.
“Monthly accidents and incident analysis had improved. Trends and themes were considered and actions recorded.” from the report
People at risk
seriousRisks were not consistently assessed or managed. Inspectors found unsafe moving and handling, an unrestricted window, unsafe bed rail arrangements and uncleared fire escape routes.
“People were not always safe. People were at risk of harm as the provider had not identified, assessed or mitigated risks.” from the report
Medicines not managed safely
seriousMedicine storage, administration records, patches, creams and as-required medicines were not managed reliably. Audits had not found these problems.
“Medicine administration records (MAR) were not well completed which meant we could not be sure people were receiving their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Too few staff and incomplete checks
seriousThere were not enough staff to meet people's needs safely. Recruitment files also had gaps in employment histories, application forms and identity checks.
“There were not enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Dignity and privacy
seriousPeople did not always have privacy, choice or a reliable way to call for help. The report also describes missing laundry and no screening curtain in a shared room.
“We found people were not always treated with dignity and respect. This was a breach of regulation 10 (Dignity and respect) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousQuality audits and improvement plans had not dealt with important problems. Records contained gaps, and some issues remained after the provider said they had been fixed.
“Quality assurance systems were not effective in identifying and addressing issues and risks we found at the inspection.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to make medicines storage, administration records, patches and creams safe?
- 02How many staff are now on duty on days and nights, and how is this matched to the needs of all residents?
- 03What checks are now completed before staff start work, including employment history and proof of identity?
- 04How are moving and handling risks, sensor mats, bed rails and emergency escape routes checked each day?
- 05How are privacy, call bells, care plans and records of personal care now being managed?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection focused on the concerns identified after the previous inspection, including Safe, Effective and Well-led; no separate Caring or Responsive rating was given in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 August 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 Rose Cottage
8 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2024Goodcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2023Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2014GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 December 2013.
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
99 live-in carers within about an hour of Bradford
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. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
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.