Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Rosedale

Goodpublished 14 December 2018, 7 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
People were protected from abuse, medicines were stored securely and staff numbers were considered sufficient. However, the fire risk assessment was not specific to the home and some safety items needed attention.
Effective?
Good
Staff had relevant training, supervision and appraisals. People's mental and physical health, nutrition and legal rights were supported.
Caring?
Good
Staff treated people with kindness, respect and dignity. People were involved in their care and supported to remain independent.
Responsive?
Good
Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and interests. People were supported with activities, holidays, community links and healthcare appointments.
Well-led?
Good
Inspectors found open leadership, a positive culture and regular checks on quality and safety. Staff said they understood their roles and felt supported.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, December 2018

Rosedale was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, but recommended expert review of fire safety arrangements.

This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection. Inspectors visited on 6 and 7 November 2018, spoke with people, staff and health and social care professionals, and checked care records, staff records and management records.

The home supported five people with a mental health diagnosis and was registered for up to six people. Inspectors found good care across all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.

People were supported to make choices, take their medicines, eat well and join in activities. Staff were described as kind and respectful, and care records were detailed and regularly reviewed.

Inspectors did identify fire safety issues. The provider dealt with some matters during the inspection, but CQC recommended that a competent expert review the home's fire risk and safety arrangements. The overall rating stayed Good, as it had been at the previous inspection in March 2016.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and respectful care

    Staff were seen treating people with kindness and respect. They promoted privacy, dignity and independence.

    “People told us staff were kind and caring. We observed that staff treated people with respect and promoted their dignity.” from the report
  • Personalised support

    Care plans included people's health needs, preferences and risks. People and relevant professionals were involved in planning and reviewing care.

    “People received care that reflected their preferences and choices.” from the report
  • Activities and community life

    People were supported to take part in activities at home and in the community, including shopping, going to the gym and holidays.

    “People were encouraged to participate in activities run at the home and we saw people watching television, playing cards with staff and supported to go the gym.” from the report
  • Staff training and support

    Staff had completed relevant training and received regular supervision and annual appraisals.

    “Staff received regular support and supervision to carry out their duties effectively.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Fire safety needed expert review

    serious

    The fire risk assessment was not specific to the home, some safety items needed refurbishment and there had not been a recent professional fire safety inspection. The provider addressed some issues during the inspection, but CQC made a recommendation for further action.

    “We recommend that the provider considers current guidance on fire risk assessment in a care home setting, instruct a suitably competent person to ensure compliance with fire safety obligations and take action to update risk and safety assessments accordingly.” from the report
  • Some recruitment checks were missing

    needs fixing

    Inspectors found that some pre-recruitment checks were not documented, including health checks and consideration of previous performance in health and social care roles. These issues were addressed during the inspection.

    “Documentation around some pre-recruitment checks was missing.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Has a suitably competent fire safety professional reviewed the home's fire risk assessment since this inspection?
  2. 02Which fire safety items needed refurbishment, and have all the recommended works been completed?
  3. 03How does the home now record health checks and checks on applicants' previous health and social care performance?
  4. 04How are people's care plans and risk assessments reviewed when their needs or behaviour changes?
  5. 05How are people supported to choose activities and take part in community groups or healthcare appointments?

This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the accommodation and personal care provided, with all five key questions rated Good; the overall rating remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 2018 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Rosedale

2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. December 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Rosedale →

  2. June 2016Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. March 2015

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. October 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. July 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. June 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. October 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. July 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. September 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 September 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire

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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.

“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
Simon W., about Ncebakazi V.
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
Jackie S., about Tracy O.
See live-in carers near LancashireProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.