CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Roselands
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing, recruitment, risk management, medicines and infection control were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not separately rated during this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not separately rated during this inspection, although inspectors described care as kind and compassionate.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not separately rated during this inspection, although staff were found to understand and respond to people's individual communication needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found that managers were visible and approachable, staff felt supported, and audits and governance systems helped monitor quality and safety.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Roselands was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some improvements still needed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 February and 22 February 2022. Three inspectors spoke with people living in the home, staff, managers and relatives. They reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home supported 15 people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices and develop their independence. Staff knew people well and used different communication methods to understand them.
The home was clean and had effective infection control arrangements. Medicines, safeguarding, staffing and risks were managed well. Managers used checks and audits to monitor quality and acted when they found shortfalls.
The overall rating was Good. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. Caring, Effective and Responsive were not separately rated in this inspection.
People felt safe
People appeared relaxed with staff and each other. Relatives told inspectors they felt their loved ones were safe and well supported.
“I think [my loved one] is exceptionally safe at Roselands. The staff know him very well.” from the report
Choice and independence
Staff supported people to do as much as possible for themselves and to take part in activities and visits.
“Staff supported people to have the maximum possible choice, control and independence to be independent and they had control over their own lives.” from the report
Good management oversight
Managers were approachable and regular checks and audits were used to monitor the quality and safety of the service.
“Regular checks and audits were completed to monitor the quality and safety of the service delivered.” from the report
Size of the home
minorThe home was larger than the size recommended in best practice guidance for people with learning disabilities. Inspectors said the home could nevertheless show how it met the guidance's main principles.
“Whilst the size of the service is not in line with best practice guidance would recommend for people with learning disabilities” from the report
Radiator covers still being fitted
needs fixingSome radiators needed covers to reduce the risk of people burning themselves. The report says the covers were being fitted when inspectors visited.
“There were a number of radiators which needed covers to prevent people burning themselves. These were in the process of being fitted.” from the report
- 01Have covers now been fitted to all the radiators identified during the inspection?
- 02How will staff communicate with my relative if they use pictures, signs, gestures or another method rather than speech?
- 03How many regular staff work at the home, and how do you maintain one-to-one support for activities and visits?
- 04How are medicines given when someone cannot communicate easily or when medicines are given covertly?
- 05How will you support my relative to make choices and build independence in daily life?
This was an unannounced inspection focused on the Right support, right care, right culture principles; only Safe and Well-led were rated, while the other key questions were not separately rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 April 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.
What inspectors found, December 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but some liberty safeguards were still awaiting authorisation.
This was an unannounced inspection of the home. Inspectors reviewed information held by CQC, the provider's return, care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff records and quality checks. They spoke with people living there, a relative, staff and managers, and observed care and activities.
The home supports 15 people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements and suitable risk assessments. People were treated with kindness and respect, supported to make choices, and helped to take part in activities, manage daily tasks and keep in touch with family and the community.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. It remained Good overall, although Responsive fell from Outstanding at the previous inspection because the home had not shown innovative practice or improvements in how it met individual needs.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. Staffing was flexible so people could take part in activities with staff they knew.
“There were enough staff on shift to keep people safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff had strong relationships with people and responded calmly when someone became distressed. They supported people discreetly and encouraged independence.
“Staff treated people with respect and dignity and gave them the support they needed in a discreet manner.” from the report
Active lives
People took part in activities inside and outside the home, including shopping, swimming, horse-riding, singing, drama and community fundraising.
“People took part in a range of activities both inside and outside of the service.” from the report
Good oversight
The registered manager carried out regular checks on medicines, records, incidents and health and safety. Feedback from people and relatives was sought regularly and was positive.
“The registered manager carried out regular monthly checks on the service.” from the report
Some liberty safeguards not authorised
needs fixingThe manager had applied for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards where needed, but not all applications had been authorised by the local authority at the time of the inspection.
“The registered manager had applied for DoLS for people, when necessary, but not all of these had been authorised by the local authority.” from the report
Responsive rating fell
minorResponsive care was still rated Good, but the home had not shown innovative practice or improvements in how it met people's individual needs. This was a change from Outstanding at the previous inspection.
“However, the service had not demonstrated innovative practice or made improvements on how responsive they were to people's individual needs.” from the report
- 01Which people currently have a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards application, and has each application been authorised?
- 02How do you check that any authorisations and reviews are completed when required?
- 03What new or improved ways are you using to meet each person's individual needs?
- 04How will you make sure there are enough familiar staff when regular staff are off sick or unavailable?
- 05How are people and their families involved in reviewing care plans and activity choices?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating, with care plans, records, staff practice and people's experiences reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 December 2017 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 Roselands
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 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.