CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rose Farm
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and risks were assessed and managed. Inspectors noted that some people had to wait for support, and the manager agreed to observe staffing and review staffing levels.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed, staff were trained and people's nutrition, hydration and healthcare needs were supported. Some mental capacity and best-interest records lacked detail, but these were reviewed during the inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were encouraged to make choices, maintain independence and take part in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and included people's preferences. People had activities, support to maintain relationships and ways to raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- There was a clear management structure and regular quality checks. This rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Rose Farm was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but some people sometimes had to wait for support.
This was a planned, unannounced inspection on 26 February 2020. Inspectors spoke with seven people, two relatives and 11 staff. They also checked training records, quality checks and policies.
The service was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, supported by trained staff, treated with dignity and given care that reflected their choices.
There were some issues. Staff deployment meant some people sometimes waited for support. Inspectors also found missing guidance for some medicines, incomplete detail in some decision-making records and a bathroom in disrepair. These issues were either addressed during the inspection or were already on an improvement plan.
Kind and respectful care
People spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed kind interactions and found that privacy, dignity and independence were respected.
“People spoke highly of the staff who supported them. Staff treated people with care, kindness and dignity.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's individual needs, choices and preferences. Families were involved in reviews where appropriate.
“People's care plans were personalised and included information about their choices.” from the report
Good food and nutrition support
People had a choice of meals and could request an alternative. Staff understood special diets and health-related dietary needs.
“People had a choice of two meals and if they didn't want either of those, they could ask for an alternative.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered group and one-to-one activities, supported visits and helped people maintain important relationships.
“There were a range of activities available including music and movement, reminiscing, ball games, nail care.” from the report
Some delays in support
needs fixingStaffing was judged adequate for safety, but the way staff were deployed meant some people sometimes waited for help. The manager agreed to review staffing levels.
“Although deployment meant some people sometimes had to wait for support.” from the report
Medicine guidance and records
needs fixingSome guidance for medicines given when needed was missing, and inspectors raised concerns about medicine administration records. The provider addressed these points promptly during the inspection.
“We did find, in some cases, protocols to guide staff on these types of medicines were missing.” from the report
Decision-making records
needs fixingSome mental capacity assessments and best-interest documents did not contain enough detail. The manager reviewed them and supplied evidence of added detail.
“some assessments and best interest documents did lack some detail” from the report
Bathroom repair
needs fixingOne bathroom was in disrepair, which could have made cleaning less effective and increased infection risk. The provider had already identified this and included it on an improvement plan.
“one of the bathrooms was in disrepair which could potentially mean cleaning could be ineffective and therefore posing an increased risk of infection.” from the report
- 01How are staff allocated in the unit my relative would use, and how do you prevent people waiting for support?
- 02What changes were made to medicine administration records and guidance after the inspection?
- 03Have all mental capacity and best-interest records been reviewed and updated with enough detail?
- 04Has the bathroom identified in the report been repaired, and how was the infection risk managed?
- 05How will you keep families involved in care plan reviews and decisions about their relative?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering the premises, care and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 April 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.
What inspectors found, August 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind, responsive care, but the home’s leadership and record checks needed improvement.
Inspectors visited without notice on 29 June 2017 after receiving information of concern. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a health professional. They observed care, medicines and staff interactions, and reviewed care plans, risk assessments, staff records and management checks.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training, kind interactions and personalised care. People could access health professionals, were involved in decisions and had ways to raise concerns.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being well-led. Formal staff supervision was not consistent. Quality checks had not found some inaccurate or contradictory care records, including missing information about a pressure-relieving mattress setting. The report also says improvements had been made since the previous inspection, including better risk assessments, cleaner areas and improved monitoring.
Improvements since the last visit
The home had addressed earlier concerns about risk assessments, safety plans, equipment checks and cleanliness.
“At this inspection we found the necessary improvements had been made.” from the report
Staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely, with staff training and competency checks.
“Medicines were managed safely and consistently.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff speaking patiently and respectfully with people. People's privacy, dignity and choices were supported.
“We saw people were supported with patience, consideration and kindness and their privacy and dignity was respected.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, personal histories and guidance for staff. People and relatives were involved in care planning.
“We saw care plans were personalised to reflect people's wishes, preferences, goals and what was important to them.” from the report
Inconsistent staff supervision
needs fixingStaff told inspectors they felt supported, but formal one-to-one supervision was not provided consistently. The manager said improving this was still work in progress.
“Staff said they felt supported by the registered manager; however the provision of formal supervision was inconsistent.” from the report
Care records and quality checks
needs fixingAudits had not found some inaccurate or contradictory care plan information. Records did not always show that changes in people's health or equipment settings were being properly monitored.
“Quality monitoring systems had not identified shortfalls in care planning documentation.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that care plans are accurate and do not contain contradictory information?
- 02How are pressure-relieving mattress settings recorded and checked for each person?
- 03How often do staff receive formal supervision, and how do you make sure nobody misses it?
- 04How do care plan reviews record changes in health, fluid intake and other ongoing risks?
- 05What action was taken after the information of concern that led to this inspection?
This was an unannounced, responsive inspection following information of concern and it assessed all five key questions, including care, safety and leadership. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 August 2017 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 Farm
5 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvement
- January 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 January 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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.