What the CQC found at Rosedale Court

Inspectors saw staff listening and engaging with people respectfully. People and relatives spoke positively about the support they received.

“Staff supported people in a kind and caring way.” from the report

People said staff respected their privacy and dignity. Staff offered choices about food and activities.

“People told us staff were polite and respectful of their privacy and dignity.” from the report

People, relatives and staff generally felt able to raise concerns with the management team. Meetings and social events were arranged to encourage involvement.

“People, relatives, and staff told us felt comfortable raising any issues or concerns with the management team” from the report

Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements for preventing and managing infections, including the use of protective equipment.

“We were assured the provider was responding effectively to risks and signs of infection.” from the report

Some risk assessments and fire evacuation plans were not up to date. Pressure-relieving equipment checks were not always completed, and building work had not been assessed for its impact on people's safety.

“Risks to people's health and safety were not always managed appropriately.” from the report

Some people did not receive the prompting and encouragement set out in their care plans. Records did not always show what people had eaten or what action was taken when fluid intake was low.

“The provider had not ensured people's nutrition and hydration needs were managed effectively.” from the report

Some care plans were contradictory or did not accurately record preferences, including preferences about the gender of staff providing personal care. People were not always shown to be involved in planning their care or in decisions about refurbishment.

“People's care plans were not always personalised to reflect their individual preferences.” from the report

Management checks did not identify or address concerns quickly enough. Safeguarding trackers, incident reports, complaints analysis and some medicines records were incomplete or lacked detail.

“The provider's systems for monitoring the quality and safety of the service were not always effective” from the report

Some mandatory training was overdue or incomplete. Staff did not always receive regular supervision or appraisals, and recruitment records did not always contain a full employment history.

“The provider had not always ensured staff completed or renewed their mandatory training when due.” from the report

People gave mixed views about the range and quality of activities. Records did not always show what activities had been offered or how people were supported to avoid social isolation.

“It was not always clear from their daily care records what activities they had been offered” from the report