CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rosegarland Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection controls, but the laundry area needed improvement.
Inspectors visited the home on 19 July 2021. This was an announced, targeted inspection during the COVID-19 outbreak. It looked at infection prevention and control practices.
Inspectors found several good practices. Visits were spaced out, visitors had lateral flow tests and health questionnaires, and an area was set aside to isolate people with COVID-19.
The home was meeting most infection control measures, including the use of personal protective equipment, testing, safe admissions and visiting arrangements. However, inspectors were only somewhat assured about the layout and hygiene practices in the premises.
The laundry area needed improvement. Inspectors identified issues with laundry handling, PPE availability, lever taps and clinical waste. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Managed visiting
Visits were spaced out, and visitors were tested and asked about symptoms and recent contact with people who had COVID-19.
“Visitors complete a lateral flow test and fill out a questionnaire to ensure they are symptom free and have had no contact with people who have tested positive for COVID-19.” from the report
Use of infection control guidance
The home sought advice from the local authority infection prevention and control team. This helped it support safe birthday visits.
“The registered manager effectively seeks the guidance of the Local Authority infection prevention and control team.” from the report
Isolation arrangements
During the COVID-19 outbreak, part of the home was separated so that people with the virus could be isolated.
“During the COVID-19 outbreak an area of the home was sectioned off to enable people with the virus to be isolated.” from the report
Laundry area
needs fixingThe laundry area needed better infection prevention and control arrangements. The report refers to laundry handling, PPE, taps and clinical waste, and also raised the need to consider domestic staffing so hygiene standards could be maintained.
“The laundry area of the home required improvement around infection prevention and control measures.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to the laundry area since the inspection?
- 02How is laundry handled and stored to prevent infection?
- 03Is PPE now always available in the laundry area?
- 04What arrangements are in place for clinical waste and the laundry area's taps?
- 05How do you make sure domestic staffing is sufficient to maintain hygiene standards without affecting people's care?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices during the COVID-19 outbreak; it was inspected but not rated and did not provide a wider quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 August 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, May 2019
Rosegarland Residential Care Home was Rated Requires Improvement; care was kind and personalised, but safety checks and management oversight needed strengthening.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 4 April 2019. Two inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff, the manager and a health professional. They reviewed care records, audits and other information, including documents sent after the visit.
People received personalised care from staff who knew them well. Inspectors found good standards in effective, caring and responsive care. Medicines were administered safely, people's health and dietary needs were supported, and staff were trained and supervised.
The home was not always safe because gas safety checks and planned lift maintenance were out of date. The provider acted immediately, but inspectors recommended better monitoring of equipment. The management rating was also Requires Improvement because new quality checks had not been in place long enough to show they worked, and there was no registered manager in post.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. This was the first inspection since the service registered with a new provider. The home was not placed in special measures in this report.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as kind and helpful. Inspectors saw staff offering reassurance, choices and respectful support.
“We observed staff were calm and warm in their approach to people.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and communication requirements. Staff knew people well and updated records when needs changed.
“People received personalised care from staff who knew them well.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Staff had medicines training and competency checks. Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of using safe procedures.
“Medicines systems were organised and people were receiving their medicines when they should.” from the report
Good staff support
Staff received regular training, supervision and support to gain qualifications. People and relatives were confident in staff's abilities.
“People received effective care and support from competent and skilled staff who had the relevant qualification and skills to meet their needs.” from the report
Good communication with families
Relatives said communication was good and that staff kept them informed. The home involved relatives in decisions where appropriate.
“One relative said, "[the staff] always keep me up to date and contact over the little things. It's very personal.” from the report
Overdue safety checks
seriousGas safety checks and scheduled lift maintenance were out of date. Inspectors found no impact on people, and the provider made immediate arrangements to address the issue.
“However, we identified the gas safety checks and scheduled lift maintenance were out of date.” from the report
Quality systems not yet tested
needs fixingThe manager had introduced new audits, but they had not been running long enough for inspectors to judge whether they were effective. The report recommends stronger oversight of equipment maintenance.
“It was not possible to assess the effectiveness of the audits as they had only recently been introduced.” from the report
No registered manager in post
needs fixingThe previous registered manager had left. The current manager had applied to register, but the application was still at an early stage.
“There was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01Have the gas safety checks and scheduled lift maintenance now been completed, and can you show us the latest records?
- 02How do your new audits now identify and follow up overdue equipment servicing?
- 03Has the manager's application to become registered been completed?
- 04What evidence can you show that the new quality monitoring system is leading to improvements?
- 05How will you keep our relative's care plan and risk assessments updated if their needs change?
This was an unannounced routine inspection covering all five CQC questions and included observations, discussions with people, relatives, staff and a health professional, and reviews of care and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 May 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 Rosegarland Residential Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- August 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Rosegarland Residential Care Home →
- May 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Rosegarland Residential Care Home →
- April 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 April 2018.
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
99 live-in carers within about an hour of Bradford
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 £1,250 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
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.