CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rosecroft
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found people were protected from avoidable harm. Risk assessments, safeguarding arrangements, infection control, staffing, recruitment and medicines management were all described as effective.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective systems for identifying and reducing risks, keeping care records, checking training and involving people, families, staff and other professionals.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 1 March 2023. One inspector spoke with all four people living at the home, three staff members and the registered manager. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment and training records, meetings and other management documents.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found effective systems for managing risks, safeguarding people, infection control, staffing and medicines. People were supported with kindness, patience and their preferred communication methods, including communication cards and Makaton.
The previous inspection had rated the service Requires Improvement, with breaches linked to risk management, records and infection control. Inspectors found enough improvement had been made and said the home was no longer in breach. The overall rating changed to Good, but Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit and their previous ratings were used.
Kind and respectful support
Staff treated people with kindness and patience. They used communication methods suited to each person and supported dignity, choice and independence.
“We saw staff treated people with kindness and patience and responded to requests appropriately using their preferred communication methods such as communication cards and/or Makaton.” from the report
Improved risk management
Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed more effectively than at the previous inspection. Changes included window restrictors, regular visual checks and safer heating pipes.
“The registered manager had effective systems in place to identify and mitigate risks to people and staff.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were stored and recorded appropriately. Staff understood the risks of over-medication and records checked by inspectors were accurate.
“We found medicines had been stored and recorded appropriately.” from the report
Stable and knowledgeable staff
Staff knew people’s needs, preferences and usual behaviour. Staffing levels and training were judged suitable for the people living at the home.
“The numbers and skills of staff matched the needs of people using the service.” from the report
Open leadership
The manager was visible and approachable. Staff said they could raise concerns, and inspectors found that complaints and safeguarding matters were followed up.
“Management were visible in the service, approachable and took a genuine interest in what people, staff, family, advocates and other professionals had to say.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What were the previous ratings and findings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, which were not inspected this time?
- 02How do you make sure risk assessments and care records remain complete and up to date?
- 03How do you review medicines and check that people are not receiving unnecessary or excessive medication?
- 04How will my relative be supported to communicate, make choices and build independence?
- 05What infection control checks are carried out now, and how are any problems recorded and fixed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 March 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, December 2022
Rosecroft was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care but safety checks, cleanliness and records were not always reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection over 9, 16 and 17 November 2022. One inspector spoke with all four people living at the home, one relative and four staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. The other three areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used in the overall rating.
Inspectors found people were treated with kindness and supported in ways that respected their choices, communication needs and independence. However, some areas were not clean or safe, food storage was not always managed safely, and care records did not consistently show all the support people received.
The home was previously rated Good at its inspection on 5 March 2018. The provider was required to send an action plan, and the inspection report says progress would be monitored with the provider and local authority.
Kind and patient support
Staff treated people with kindness and patience. They used preferred communication methods, including communication cards and Makaton, and responded to requests appropriately.
“We saw staff treated people with kindness and patience and responded to requests appropriately using their preferred communication methods such as communication cards and/or Makaton.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, take part in activities and do tasks for themselves. Staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests” from the report
Staff knew people well
Staff understood people’s individual needs, habits and communication. Relatives gave very positive feedback about the care and support.
“Staff told us they knew people, from what their favourite drinks were, how they liked their food, to their individual habits and mannerisms.” from the report
Medicines managed well
Inspectors found medicines were stored and recorded appropriately. Staff understood the need to avoid inappropriate over-medication and knew about possible side effects.
“We found medicines had been stored and recorded appropriately. We checked the medicine administration record for people and found they were accurate.” from the report
Safeguarding and staffing
Staff had safeguarding training, knew how to report concerns and worked with other agencies. Staffing numbers and skills matched people’s needs.
“The numbers and skills of staff matched the needs of people using the service.” from the report
Infection control and cleanliness
needs fixingSome areas were not clean or easy to clean. The staff room was cluttered, the smoking area was dirty and damaged bathroom tiles affected cleaning.
“We found some areas of the home had not been effectively cleaned.” from the report
Food storage
needs fixingSome food had not been labelled or stored properly. Inspectors said this created a potential risk of harm.
“We were not assured that the provider had effective food safety management systems in place.” from the report
Unidentified environmental risks
seriousInspectors found unsafe garden areas, unsecured old equipment, missing window restrictors and exposed heating pipes that could burn people. Some immediate remedial work was arranged.
“We found people were at risk of potential harm as there were no window restrictors applied on the first-floor windows.” from the report
Incomplete care records
needs fixingRecords did not consistently show personal care, choices offered, activities or how people responded. This meant records did not fully reflect the care provided.
“Records of people's care were not reflective of the full extent of care provided.” from the report
Weak oversight
seriousThe home did not have effective enough systems to identify, monitor and reduce risks. This contributed to the breaches recorded by inspectors.
“There were not established and effective systems in place to identify and mitigate risks to people and staff.” from the report
- 01Have the damaged bathroom tiles been repaired, and how are cleaning standards now checked?
- 02What changes have been made to food labelling and storage, and how are these checks recorded?
- 03Have window restrictors been fitted, exposed heating pipes covered and unsafe garden equipment removed?
- 04How are staff now recording personal care, choices, activities and people’s responses?
- 05What action plan was sent to CQC, and what improvements have been completed since the inspection?
This was an unannounced focused inspection prompted by a review of information held about the home, covering Safe and Well-led; the other ratings carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 December 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 Rosecroft
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2022Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 January 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.