CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rosehill House Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safe medicines systems, suitable risk assessments, enough staff to meet assessed needs, safe recruitment and effective infection control. They also found that the previous medicines-related breach had been resolved.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an approachable manager, clear staff responsibilities, good teamwork and improved audits. However, systems for gathering feedback from people, relatives and professionals had not been in place recently.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Rosehill House Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found safer medicines management and kind, well-organised care, but feedback systems needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 12 July 2023. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with people, staff, a relative and professionals. They observed lunch, checked care and medicines records, and reviewed staff recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were happy with their care. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's assessed needs, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments, and appropriate infection control.
Medicines management had improved since the previous inspection. Records were secure and up to date, with no gaps found in medicines administration records. The previous breach of Regulation 17 had been resolved.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. This visit only assessed Safe and Well-led. The ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous inspection.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Inspectors also saw people looking comfortable and relaxed with staff.
“People looked relaxed, happy and comfortable with staff supporting them.” from the report
Good teamwork and leadership
The manager was available and staff understood their roles. Inspectors found a positive staff culture and good communication about changes in people's needs.
“There was good communication between all the staff.” from the report
Effective outside support
The home worked with health and social care professionals. Staff recognised changes in people's health and made referrals when needed.
“Where changes in people's needs were identified, prompt and appropriate referrals for external professional support were made.” from the report
Staffing at some times
needs fixingMost feedback was that staffing levels met people's needs, but one relative felt the home was sometimes short-staffed. The manager was recruiting additional staff.
“However, 1 relative felt that at times the service was short of staff.” from the report
Limited formal feedback
needs fixingThe home had not obtained surveys or feedback from people, relatives and professionals for some time. The manager planned to introduce surveys.
“However, we found a quality survey and feedback had not been obtained from people, relatives, and professionals for some time.” from the report
Activities staffing
minorThere was no designated activities staff member when inspectors visited. Care staff were planning and carrying out activities while the manager hoped to recruit someone.
“There was not a designated activities staff member currently, however the registered manager hoped to recruit one soon.” from the report
- 01How many staff are normally on duty at different times, and how do you cover sickness, absences and busy periods?
- 02What activities are currently available, while there is no designated activities staff member?
- 03How are you now collecting and responding to feedback from residents, relatives and professionals?
- 04What checks are now carried out on medicines records, and how often are these checks reviewed?
- 05How will you keep families informed when a person's care needs or health changes?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 August 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, February 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; people received kind, personalised care, but medicines records and quality checks were not reliable enough.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 26 and 30 November 2021. They spoke with people, a relative and staff, and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
People generally said they were happy and felt safe. Inspectors saw friendly and respectful care. Staff knew people well, supported their choices, helped them access healthcare and provided activities and personalised care.
The main concern was medicines. Records were sometimes inaccurate, including medicines signed as given before they were administered, late medicines recorded as on time and unclear records for some creams and medicines given when required. Audits had not identified these problems.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. This was a deterioration from the previous overall rating of Good, published on 21 December 2018.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, dignity and respect.
“People were positive about staff and their caring attitude and told us they were treated with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records described people's needs, preferences and personalities. Staff used this information to support people in the way they wanted.
“Care records were individualised, covered people's specific needs and held information about people's preferences and personalities.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks, induction, training and supervision were in place.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff employed and on duty to meet people's assessed needs.” from the report
Healthcare support
Staff noticed changes in people's health and contacted appropriate professionals. Care plans were updated with professional advice.
“People were supported to maintain good health and were referred to appropriate health professionals as required.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured about the home's arrangements for preventing and managing infections, including COVID-19.
“We were assured that the provider was meeting shielding and social distancing rules.” from the report
Medicines records were inaccurate
seriousMedicines administration records were not always accurate. Some medicines were signed as given before administration, some were recorded as given on time when they were late, and an inaccurate dose was not identified for 14 days.
“Medicines administration records (MARs) were not always accurate.” from the report
Unclear guidance for some medicines
seriousThere was not always enough guidance about creams and medicines given when required. Staff did not consistently record why these medicines were given or whether they worked.
“Staff did not record the reason for giving a when required medicine or whether it was effective.” from the report
Checks did not find the problems
needs fixingThe home carried out medicines checks and audits, but these did not identify the concerns found by inspectors.
“Regular audits were completed into various aspects of the service. However, these had failed to identify the issues found at this inspection in relation to medicines.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicines administration records since the November 2021 inspection?
- 02How do you now check that medicines given when required are needed, and record whether they were effective?
- 03What guidance do staff have for applying creams, including where to apply them and how much to use?
- 04How are medicines audits checked to make sure they identify errors promptly?
- 05What action was set out in the report sent to CQC, and has CQC confirmed that the action was completed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the report also compares the findings with the previous inspection published on 21 December 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 February 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 Rosehill House Residential Home
5 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Rosehill House Residential Home →
- February 2022Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Rosehill House Residential Home →
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 November 2010.
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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.