CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Roseberry Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risk assessments, medicines systems, infection control, staffing and recruitment were found to be managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health, nutrition and hydration needs were supported. Staff received training, people had access to health professionals and care was planned around individual needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- This report does not give a rating for Caring. Inspectors did report that people were supported by caring, friendly staff who knew their needs well.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- This report does not give a rating for Responsive. Inspectors found personalised care records and evidence that people's preferences and wishes were considered.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were described as approachable and open to feedback. Audits, checks and reviews were used to monitor quality and make improvements.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Roseberry Court is rated Good; inspectors found clear improvements after a previous Requires Improvement rating, with safe, effective and well-led care.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 April 2023. One inspector spoke with six people, three relatives and nine staff. They also reviewed care records, medicines, food and fluid records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were each rated Good. Inspectors found improvements in risk assessments, medicines, infection control, nutrition, care records and management oversight. People said they felt safe and supported by caring staff.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in January 2023. The provider had made improvements through an action plan, and the report says it was no longer in breach of regulations at this inspection.
Safer risk management
Risk assessments had improved and gave staff clearer guidance. Care records were reviewed and people were involved in their care planning.
“Improvements had been made to risk assessments and these provided guidance for staff on how to safely support people.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Medicines were received, stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff handling medicines were trained and checked as competent.
“Medicines were received, stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Personalised support
People were involved in planning and reviewing their care. Records included current information about their needs and preferences.
“People were involved in planning and reviewing their care and support.” from the report
Improved leadership
The management team had better oversight of quality, accidents, complaints and concerns. Staff said teamwork and support had improved.
“The culture at the service had significantly improved since our last inspection.” from the report
Good health support
The home worked with health professionals and external agencies. Inspectors found that advice was recorded for staff to follow and people's nutrition was being monitored.
“The service worked closely with other health professionals and external agencies to support them with their health and wellbeing.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are risk assessments reviewed when a person's needs or risks change?
- 02What checks show that the improvements in medicines management are continuing?
- 03How are people's food, drink and weight monitored, and what happens if there is a concern?
- 04How do managers use audits, complaints, accidents and incidents to check that improvements are maintained?
- 05How is staffing reviewed when people's needs change or more support is required?
This inspection covered Safe, Effective and Well-led, including infection control under Safe; Caring and Responsive were not rated in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 April 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.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Requires Improvement, with an Inadequate well-led rating; inspectors found kind care but serious problems with records, medicines, infection control and management.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 and 17 October 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and other professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff recruitment files and management documents.
People were supported by kind and patient staff. Their dignity, privacy and choices were respected. The home was recently decorated and had a homely feel. However, inspectors found important safety and care problems, including incomplete records, unsafe medicines management, poor infection control and delays in meeting some nutrition and healthcare needs.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Responsive were also Requires Improvement. Caring was Good. Well-led was Inadequate, meaning inspectors found widespread and significant shortfalls in leadership and management. The home had been rated Requires Improvement at the previous two inspections and remained in breach of regulations.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw kind and caring interactions. People were treated with dignity and relatives described staff as friendly and gentle.
“People were supported by kind and patient staff.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were encouraged to make choices about routines, meals and personal care. Staff supported people to remain as independent as possible.
“People were supported to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Staff training and recruitment
The provider had training, supervision and competency checks in place. Recruitment checks were carried out to help ensure suitable staff were employed.
“The provider followed safe recruitment procedures.” from the report
Open complaints process
The home had a complaints policy and procedure. People and relatives said they felt able to raise concerns.
“Complaints were investigated and responded to appropriately.” from the report
Risks and records
seriousRisk assessments and care plans were sometimes missing, conflicting or out of date. Inspectors found that known risks, including catheter care and weight monitoring, were not always properly recorded or managed.
“Risks were not always consistently managed.” from the report
Medicines
seriousRecords did not always show that medicines were given as prescribed. Creams were not dated when opened, some allergy information was missing and treatment-room temperature checks were incomplete.
“The provider had failed to put systems in place to ensure medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Infection control
seriousStaff did not always follow hand hygiene and protective equipment guidance. Inspectors saw a staff member clean the floor with gloved hands and then serve lunch without changing gloves.
“Staff did not always adhere to infection control guidance.” from the report
Nutrition and hydration
seriousSome people waited a long time for help with meals. Records did not reliably show who needed extra calories or fluid monitoring, and action was not always recorded when people did not drink enough.
“People were not always supported in a timely manner at mealtimes.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousManagement audits found problems, but the same problems continued. The provider had not made enough progress after earlier inspections and action plans.
“Quality performance checks were not effective.” from the report
Restrictions and healthcare referrals
needs fixingSome conditions linked to legal restrictions were not completed on time. Referrals to healthcare professionals were also not always timely, including after multiple falls.
“DoLS referrals had been made appropriately, however conditions were not always complied with.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to make medicines records, allergy information and treatment-room temperature checks reliable?
- 02How are you now checking and updating care plans and risk assessments, including catheter care, weight monitoring and nutrition?
- 03What action has been taken to ensure staff follow hand hygiene and protective equipment guidance every time?
- 04How are you making sure people receive timely support with meals and enough fluids?
- 05What progress has been made under the action plan and Warning Notice, and how will you show that the same problems will not happen again?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control; Safe remained Requires Improvement, Responsive changed from Good to Requires Improvement, and Well-led changed from Requires Improvement to Inadequate. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 January 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 Roseberry Court
7 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- January 2023Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2021Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- February 2017Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not rated
- July 2016Goodstayed GoodResponsive: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 October 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
31 live-in carers within about an hour of Redcar and Cleveland
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 £1,280 a week. 29 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.