CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Rose Villa
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, medicines were safely stored and recorded, and staff were suitably recruited. Some people gave mixed views about staffing, including waiting when using the call bell, although inspectors saw staff respond quickly.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff received training and support. The new electronic care system needed further work so care and food and drink records were accurate and fully embedded.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and knew people well. People said they were involved in decisions, treated with dignity and supported to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people could maintain relationships and take part in activities. Some care plans were less detailed than others, some contained inaccurate or confusing information, and end-of-life plans needed more detail.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, families and staff spoke positively about the managers and the culture of the home. Audits, feedback and incident reviews were used to support improvement, but records were not always clear, consistent or accurate.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but care records and some end-of-life plans needed more detail.
Inspectors visited on 8 and 22 June 2022. The first day was unannounced. They observed care, checked the building, spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were generally safe, supported by kind staff, involved in decisions and helped to maintain relationships and activities.
Inspectors found some work still needed. The new electronic care record system was not fully embedded, some records were inaccurate or unclear, food feedback was mixed, and some end-of-life care plans lacked detail.
This was the first five-area inspection under the current provider registration. The previous provider's rating was Requires Improvement, published on 29 December 2018.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff speaking kindly, working patiently and knowing people well. People and relatives gave positive feedback about the care.
“We observed staff knew people well, spoke to them nicely, and were unhurried and patient.” from the report
Safe medicines and surroundings
Medicines were safely stored and records were accurate. The home was clean, tidy and checked for safety, including equipment and fire alarms.
“The clinic room was clean and tidy and medicines were suitably stored.” from the report
Good support and partnership working
Staff received induction, training and supervision. The home worked with health professionals and made referrals when people needed extra support.
“Staff told us they were supported to do the training they required and said there was an extensive range of online training available.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People were supported to see family and friends, take part in activities and access the community. Activities were adapted around people's interests.
“People told us they were happy with the range of activities available and particularly enjoyed when they had entertainers and singers visiting the home.” from the report
Care records still being developed
needs fixingThe new electronic care planning system was not fully embedded. Some care plans were inaccurate, confusing or less person-centred, although staff understood people's needs in practice.
“We found some care plans contained inaccurate or confusing information and discussed this further with the management team.” from the report
Mixed views about food
minorPeople received support to eat and drink, but feedback about the quality of food was mixed. The home had also identified a need to make mealtimes more social where possible.
“The food looked and smelled appetising although people's views of the food provided was mixed.” from the report
Some waiting for staff
needs fixingAlthough inspectors saw staff respond quickly, some people said they sometimes waited when using the call bell. Staffing levels were described as stable but busy.
“Sometimes I have to wait if I use the call bell.” from the report
End-of-life plans needed more detail
needs fixingPeople receiving end-of-life care were treated with dignity, but some plans needed more information about physical and emotional comfort.
“We found that further work was required to improve the detail recorded and ensure they considered both physical and emotional comfort.” from the report
- 01How have you completed and checked the new electronic care records since the inspection?
- 02How do you make sure care plans are accurate, clear and personalised for each person?
- 03What changes have you made in response to mixed feedback about the quality of food?
- 04How do you ensure there are enough staff when people use the call bell?
- 05How are physical and emotional comfort recorded in plans for people receiving end-of-life care?
This was a planned inspection of all five key questions and included the care home premises, care provided, infection control, records, staffing and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 July 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.
Every inspection of Rose Villa
2 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 April 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
84 live-in carers within about an hour of Cheshire West and Chester
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. 76 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.