CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Rose Hill Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Rose Hill Nursing Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found mostly sound infection control, but some bathroom bins needed replacing.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 2 March 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19-related staffing pressures affected care.
The home had plans for managing outbreaks and supporting people who developed COVID-19. Staff had access to personal protective equipment, testing and vaccines. Inspectors saw staff using protective equipment properly and saw cleaning taking place.
Most infection control arrangements gave inspectors assurance. However, some bathroom bins were not lidded or had broken lids. The manager said replacements would be ordered straight away.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give a new overall quality rating or full ratings for all five areas.
Support during COVID-19
People's needs were reviewed when they were diagnosed with COVID-19, and extra care was provided in the home when needed.
“People's needs were reviewed to ensure appropriate support was provided in case they were diagnosed with COVID-19.” from the report
Visiting and contact
People were supported to receive visitors and to stay in touch with loved ones when meeting in person was not possible.
“People could host visitors and were supported to maintain contact with their loved ones when they could not see each other in person.” from the report
Staff support and equipment
Staff had access to protective equipment, testing and vaccines. They had COVID-19 training and said they could approach the manager with questions.
“Staff commented they felt supported, received COVID-19 related training and could freely approach the registered manager with any queries.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home had plans and a risk assessment for infection control, including using staff cohorts where needed to reduce the risk of infection spreading.
“There were clear plans and a risk assessment on how the home would adhere to the COVID-19 national guidance.” from the report
Bathroom bin lids
minorSome bathroom bins were not lidded or had broken lids. The manager said replacements would be ordered straight away.
“We saw some of the bins in the bathrooms were not lidded or the lids were broken.” from the report
- 01Were all the bathroom bins with missing or broken lids replaced, and when was this completed?
- 02How does the home manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures without affecting people's care?
- 03How will the home manage an infection outbreak, including the use of staff cohorts?
- 04How are families told about changes to visiting arrangements?
- 05How does the home check that staff and visiting professionals meet the vaccination requirements described in the report?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide a full rating of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 March 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, September 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, effective, kind and responsive care, but the home was rated Requires Improvement for being well-led.
Inspectors visited without warning on 31 July 2019 and returned on 1 August to gather more evidence. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines, training, safety records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were kept safe, had enough staff, received appropriate health and nutrition support, and were treated with kindness and dignity. Their care was generally personalised, with activities and support for communication and relationships.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The home had improved since the previous inspection and was no longer in breach of regulations, but its checks and records did not always show that standards were being monitored and maintained. CQC recommended a more robust quality assurance system and more frequent checks.
Enough staff
Inspectors found that staffing levels met people's needs. People received help when they needed it, including support at lunchtime.
“People were cared for by enough staff. People told us they had help when they needed it and we did not see anyone waiting.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely and records were completed correctly. Staff demonstrated safe administration and pharmacy audits provided additional checks.
“People's medicines records were completed correctly.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw calm, patient and considerate support, with privacy and independence respected.
“People were treated well, with kindness and care shown by the staff.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
Care plans recorded people's routines, likes and dislikes. People could take part in group activities, one-to-one sessions, outings and visits.
“People received support that was tailored to them individually.” from the report
Improvement since the previous inspection
The provider addressed the issues found at the last inspection. The home was no longer in breach of regulations and its overall rating rose from Requires Improvement to Good.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation.” from the report
Quality checks were not robust enough
needs fixingThe home did not consistently record checks of staff practice, cleaning and care records. Incident trends and learning were also not fully analysed or included in the improvement plan.
“Further improvement was needed to ensure quality checks and oversight of staff practice was maintained.” from the report
Staff communication during care
minorStaff did not always speak with or engage people while carrying out care tasks. Inspectors asked the manager to remind staff to improve this.
“Staff did not always talk with people when undertaking tasks.” from the report
Some care information was inconsistent
needs fixingOne skin care plan was out of date and two care records had incorrect risk ratings. The nurse agreed to investigate the recording error.
“One person's skin care plan was out of date as their wound had now healed.” from the report
End of life plans were sometimes basic
minorSome people's end of life wishes had not been recorded in much detail. The report says this was partly because not everyone or their families wanted to discuss it.
“Some of the recorded information was quite basic.” from the report
- 01What quality checks are now carried out, and how often are staff practice, cleaning records and care records reviewed?
- 02How do you analyse falls and other incidents, and how do you make sure lessons are put into the improvement plan?
- 03How do staff make sure they talk with and engage each person during personal care and other tasks?
- 04How are care plans checked so that wound information and risk ratings remain accurate?
- 05How will you discuss and record my relative's end of life wishes if they want to make them known?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; the first day was unannounced and inspectors returned on a second day to collect more evidence. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 September 2019 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 Hill Nursing Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 December 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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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. 66 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.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.