CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Roselea
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear plans for people at risk of choking, trained staff, meal-time supervision and systems for learning from incidents. They were also assured about infection prevention and control.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Roselea: targeted inspection was not rated; inspectors found good arrangements for choking risks and infection control.
This was a targeted inspection on 9 June 2021. Inspectors checked a specific concern about choking after a choking incident. They spoke with staff and residents, reviewed care records, and checked quality records and policies.
Inspectors found that people at risk of choking had care plans, eating and drinking guidance, and support from staff. Staff had training and knew what to do if someone choked. The report says there was no evidence that people were at risk of harm from the concern inspected.
The visit also checked infection prevention and control. Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, managing visits and admissions, and following relevant safety measures. This targeted inspection was not rated. The previous overall rating remained Good.
Choking plans
People at risk of choking had clear support plans and guidance from health professionals. Staff understood how to reduce and manage the risk.
“Care plans and risk assessments provided clear guidelines.” from the report
Staff preparedness
Staff had training in first aid and the use of a de-choking device. They knew how to recognise choking and what action to take.
“Staff were clear about how to identify if a person was choking and the actions to take if choking occurred.” from the report
Meal-time supervision
Staff supervised people during meals so that any choking incident could be dealt with quickly.
“Staff provided supervision to people at meal times to ensure any incidents of choking could be quickly dealt with.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors found several examples of good infection control practice, including COVID-19 safety arrangements for activities.
“We found several examples of good infection control practices.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How often are each person's choking risk assessment and eating and drinking guidance reviewed?
- 02When did staff last receive training in first aid and the use of the de-choking device?
- 03How is staff supervision arranged during meals for people at risk of choking?
- 04How are accidents and incidents checked for lessons, and how are those lessons shared with staff?
- 05How are visits, activities and infection control arrangements kept up to date when guidance changes?
This was a targeted inspection of specific choking concerns and infection prevention and control under Safe; it did not assess the whole service, so the previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 July 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, March 2020
Roselea was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with two best-interest decisions not fully recorded.
Inspectors visited on 2 and 9 March 2020 without giving notice. They observed care, spoke with staff and the manager, reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and quality records, and contacted relatives and healthcare professionals.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicine systems, personalised care, support for independence and regular activities in the home and community.
There was one recording gap. Two best-interest decision processes had not been recorded, although the manager had identified this and added it to the service action plan. The home was also larger than current best-practice guidance, but inspectors said its design and setting reduced the possible impact.
The previous inspection rating was Good, published on 23 June 2017. This inspection found the overall rating and all five question ratings remained Good.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices and live as independently as possible. Three self-contained flats offered independence with staff support nearby.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and checked as competent in managing medicines. Inspectors found no gaps in the medicine administration records they checked.
“There were no gaps in the recording on people's administration records and the stock we checked was correct.” from the report
Kind, respectful care
Relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff knock before entering rooms and protect people's privacy during personal care.
“We observed people being treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Activities and community life
People took part in activities linked to their interests, went out into the community and were supported to maintain friendships and roles.
“During our inspection we saw people going out in the community, helping to prepare meals and enjoy sensory activities.” from the report
Best-interest records
needs fixingTwo assessments did not record the best-interest decision process. The manager knew about this and had put it on the service action plan.
“We did see two assessments where the best interest decision process was not recorded.” from the report
- 01How were the two missing best-interest decision records completed after the inspection, and who checks them now?
- 02What is the current registration position of the manager, and who is responsible for the home if registration is still pending?
- 03How does the size of the home affect daily life, privacy and support for people who need a quieter or more individual setting?
- 04How are people involved in choosing activities, meals and their daily routines?
- 05How are people's medicines reviewed and any changes monitored?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection that looked at the care, premises and all five CQC questions; all ratings were assessed during this inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 March 2020 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 Roselea
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 September 2014.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.