CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Rosebridge Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing visitors from spreading infections, using protective equipment safely, carrying out testing and managing outbreaks. This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Rosebridge Court had a targeted infection-control inspection and was not rated; inspectors found strong arrangements for preventing infections.
The inspection took place on 10 February 2021. It was announced and focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found robust cleaning procedures, regular cleaning of frequently touched areas, enough personal protective equipment and checks that staff used it correctly. Staff had infection-control training and their skills were checked and recorded.
The home had controls for visitors, testing, social distancing and staff working in separate groups. Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and managing infection risks.
The service was marked inspected but not rated. This inspection did not provide an overall quality rating.
Cleaning
The home had strengthened its cleaning arrangements. Frequently touched areas were cleaned at least four times a day and audits were carried out more often.
“Frequent touch points were cleaned at least four times per day and new cleaning products had been introduced.” from the report
Protective equipment
There was a plentiful supply of protective equipment. Staff wore it correctly and had their competence checked and recorded.
“The home had a plentiful supply of PPE, which was worn correctly and consistently by staff.” from the report
Visiting controls
The home had a process for professional, contractor and end-of-life visitors. Plans were also in place for indoor visits after lockdown.
“This included completion of a lateral flow test, risk assessment and wearing of PPE, with access limited to specific areas of the home.” from the report
Staff separation
Staff were allocated to particular floors, with breaks taken on those floors. This was intended to reduce unnecessary movement through the home.
“The home had implemented cohorting effectively, with staff allocated to specific floors within the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have the cleaning routines and infection-control audits changed since this inspection?
- 02How do you now check that staff are competent in infection control and the safe use of protective equipment?
- 03What are the current visiting arrangements, including testing, protective equipment and cleaning between visits?
- 04How do you keep staff groups separate and limit movement around the home?
- 05How do you manage care and safety issues that were not covered by this targeted inspection?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not rate the overall service or the other key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 March 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, June 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with minor recruitment record issues.
The CQC made an unannounced inspection visit on 15 and 17 April 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They observed care and checked care, medicine, staffing, training and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, a clean environment and care plans that reflected people's needs and choices.
People were described as relaxed, content and well cared for. Staff knew people well, supported their independence and noticed changes in their health or behaviour. Families were welcomed and involved in care planning.
The home was rated Good at the previous inspection in September 2016, so the overall rating had not changed. Inspectors noted minor problems with recording some employment history and electronic references, but no regulations were breached.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe, and the home had systems for safeguarding, risk assessment, fire safety and investigating incidents.
“People were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Legal requirements were met.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Staff were trained and their competence was checked.
“Records showed that medication was administered as prescribed.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's preferences, interests and support needs. Staff knew people well and encouraged independence.
“Support plans were thorough and contained person-centred information detailing what was important to the individual.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw a caring environment where people were treated with patience and respect. Relatives said staff understood how their family members liked to be supported.
“The service nurtured a caring environment where people were treated with respect, kindness and patience.” from the report
Open management
The manager was approachable and staff, people and relatives felt able to share their views. Audits and meetings were used to improve the service.
“The service was consistently managed and well-led.” from the report
Recruitment records
minorOne staff file did not record a four-month gap in employment history. Some electronic references were not automatically dated or signed, and the home agreed to look into this.
“One staff file we looked at had a four-month gap in the person's employment history, and although the registered manager was able to tell us about this gap this had not been recorded.” from the report
Knowing how to complain
minorSome people did not know how to complain because they had never needed to. Relatives said they knew about the complaints process and inspectors found the one recorded complaint had been handled appropriately.
“When we asked, some of the people we spoke with told us that they did not know how to complain because they have never needed to.” from the report
- 01How have you improved the recording of employment gaps and the dating or signing of electronic references since this inspection?
- 02How will you make sure my relative's risks, care plan and medicines are reviewed when their needs change?
- 03How will you involve my relative and our family in care plan reviews and decisions about care?
- 04What activities would be available for my relative, and how would you adapt them to their interests and communication needs?
- 05How should we raise a concern or make a complaint, and who would deal with it?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality and safety of the care, covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 June 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 Rosebridge Court
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 October 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Wigan
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. 92 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during 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.