CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Rose Garden
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found people were protected from avoidable harm, with individual risk assessments, safeguarding training, safe recruitment and enough staff observed during the visit. Medicines and infection control were also managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People’s needs were reviewed and care plans were updated. Staff were trained and supported, people received help with food, drinks and healthcare, and the home followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act, although some covert medicines records were unclear.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind interactions and found that people were treated with dignity and respect. People and relatives were generally happy with the care and were involved in decisions about care where possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people’s individual needs and preferences. People could take part in activities and socialise, and there was a process for handling complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive, person-centred culture and staff felt supported. Audits were used to monitor care, safety and improvements, and the manager worked with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, November 2021
Rose Garden was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some questions about staffing and medicines decisions.
This was the home’s first inspection since it registered in 2019. Inspectors visited on 21 October 2021, spoke with people, relatives and staff, reviewed care and other records, and held a follow-up video call with the manager.
The overall rating was Good. All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff during the visit, safe medicines systems, suitable care planning, kind interactions and good management oversight.
There were some areas to keep under review. Some relatives had mixed views about staffing. Inspectors also found that records explaining some covert medicines decisions were not always clear. The manager said these records would be reviewed immediately.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed warm, respectful interactions. People appeared relaxed and staff made time to talk with them.
“We observed kind and caring interactions, where people were supported with dignity and respect.” from the report
Safe care systems
The home used risk assessments, safeguarding training and safe recruitment checks. Inspectors also found medicines were stored, administered and audited safely.
“People's medicines were managed safely. Staff completed medicines training and had their competencies regularly checked.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people’s routines, preferences and support needs. Activities were adapted to individual interests, including gardening and religious worship.
“Care plans were written in a person centred way, which gave staff a clear understanding of the person's needs and the ways in which they liked to be supported.” from the report
Good management oversight
The home had audits covering areas such as care plans and health and safety. Staff described managers as supportive and approachable.
“There was a programme of audits in place to check on the home and identify areas for improvement.” from the report
Mixed views about staffing
minorSome relatives questioned staffing levels and said they could not always find a staff member to let them out. Inspectors did not find a specific occasion when this put someone at risk, and observed enough staff during the visit.
“Some relatives questioned staffing levels, giving examples such as not being able to find a member of staff to let them out of the building.” from the report
Meal choices were not always clearly explained
minorPeople could change their meal choice, but this was not always communicated clearly, so not everyone knew this.
“People were asked to make choices about their meals, the day before. Staff told us people could change their mind and request different things but evidently this wasn't always well communicated” from the report
- 01How do you make sure there are enough staff at all times, including when relatives need help leaving or entering the building?
- 02What changes were made after inspectors found that some people did not know they could change their meal choice?
- 03How are capacity assessments and best-interest decisions recorded when medicines are given covertly?
- 04How often are covert medicines decisions reviewed, and who is involved in those reviews?
- 05What progress has been made towards the Gold Standards Framework accreditation for end of life care?
This was a planned first inspection covering all five CQC key questions and included infection prevention and control checks under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 November 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, February 2021
Rose Garden was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 2 February 2021. It checked infection prevention and control arrangements because the home had a coronavirus outbreak.
Inspectors found visitor screening, handwashing and hand sanitiser, testing, suitable protective equipment, ventilation and cleaning arrangements. People with Covid-19 were isolating in their rooms on the same floor, with warning signs on doors.
The inspectors said they were assured across the infection control areas they checked. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Visitor screening
Visitors had temperature checks, contact details were recorded for tracing, and lateral flow tests were used.
“On arrival at the home, measures were in place to screen visitors to the home.” from the report
Protective equipment
Inspectors saw good supplies of PPE, staff wearing it, and designated areas for putting it on and taking it off.
“There were good supplies of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and we saw staff were wearing this as they worked.” from the report
Keeping families connected
People were supported to stay in touch with friends and family through video calls and a visiting pod when possible.
“People's wellbeing was supported by keeping in contact with friends and family through video calling and by using a visiting pod when circumstances allowed.” from the report
Cleaning arrangements
The home had cleaning systems that focused on frequently touched areas, and infection control audits were used to identify concerns.
“There were systems in place to keep the home clean, taking account of frequent touch points such as door handles.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently screened, and are testing and contact tracing still used?
- 02How do you manage isolation if a resident or staff member tests positive?
- 03How often are staff and residents tested, and what happens after a positive result?
- 04How do you check that PPE use, cleaning and infection control procedures remain effective?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; it was inspected but not rated and did not assess the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 February 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 Rose Garden
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- November 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 August 2019.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of South Gloucestershire
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 £1,280 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.