CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rosemanor 2 Residential Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found delays in essential maintenance and said people had been at increased risk during this period. They also found that one risk assessment did not match the person's care plan, although it was amended after the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Quality checks did not cover important areas such as window restrictors and regular Legionella checks. Inspectors also found delays in putting earlier safety improvements into practice.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rosemanor 2 Residential Care Home rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring support but delays in making the environment safe.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 16 November 2022. One inspector observed care, spoke with three people, the registered manager and two staff, and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found delays in essential maintenance, including window restrictors, flooring, showers, kitchen and laundry areas, and checks of the environment were not detailed enough.
There were also positive findings. Staff knew how to manage people's risks, medicines were managed safely, infection control was good, and there were enough staff. People said they were happy and staff supported their independence.
The inspection found a breach of Regulation 12 because environmental risks had not been dealt with quickly enough. The provider was required to send an action plan, and CQC said it would monitor progress.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Rotas were planned flexibly around outings, activities and healthcare appointments.
“There were enough staff on duty to support people. Staff told us their rotas were planned flexibly to accommodate people's outings, activities and healthcare appointments.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were stored securely, audited and recorded without errors. Reviews were completed to check that medicines remained suitable.
“People's medicines were kept securely and staff carried out regular audits to check that medicines were being managed in the right way.” from the report
Independence
Staff encouraged people to take part in daily routines, including activities, preparing meals and doing laundry.
“People were encouraged to be independent and staff supported people to be involved in their day to day routines.” from the report
Infection control
The home was clean in communal areas and staff followed infection control, food hygiene and protective equipment procedures.
“People were protected from the risk and spread of infection by the infection prevention and control practices at the service.” from the report
Delayed environmental repairs
seriousEssential maintenance had not been completed promptly. Inspectors said this left people at increased risk, although they found no evidence that anyone had been harmed.
“The time delay in completing this essential work meant people had been at an increased risk during this period.” from the report
Outstanding maintenance
needs fixingInspectors identified work needed on window restrictors and catches, flooring, showers, en-suites, the kitchen, laundry and storage areas.
“There were many areas of the service that required essential maintenance to maintain safety and infection control standards.” from the report
Weak safety checks
needs fixingThe quality assurance system did not include some important safety checks, including window restrictors and regular Legionella checks by a competent person.
“The quality assurance systems in place were not always robust because they did not include a number of checks including the presence and robustness of window restrictors and ensuring Legionella checks were completed regularly by a competent person.” from the report
- 01Have all the window restrictors and window catches now been replaced or repaired, and how were they checked?
- 02Has the new flooring, shower work and deep cleaning of en-suites been completed?
- 03What work has been completed in the kitchen, laundry, garden and storage areas?
- 04How often are Legionella checks now completed, and who is considered competent to carry them out?
- 05How do you make sure risk assessments match people's current care plans?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection for the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 January 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, December 2020
Rosemanor 2 Residential Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were effective.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 8 December 2020. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control because of CQC's response to coronavirus in care homes.
Inspectors found the home was clean and staff followed infection control measures. Staff used personal protective equipment safely, supported testing, and received updates about coronavirus guidance.
People were supported during isolation, including with activities and contact with others. Staff were also zoned by floor and risks to people and staff were assessed.
The service was marked inspected but not rated. This means the visit checked infection control only and was not a full inspection giving an overall quality rating.
Clean environment
The home was clean and staff carried out extra regular cleaning to reduce infection risks.
“The service was clean and staff were undertaking additional regular cleaning duties to reduce the risk of infection.” from the report
Support during isolation
People were supported with their practical needs and engagement when they had to isolate in their rooms.
“The provider made sure people had everything they needed to remain safe, keep engaged with others and reduce social isolation.” from the report
Staff arrangements
Staff were allocated to different floors to help limit the spread of infection.
“Staff were zoned to different floors to help reduce the spread of infection.” from the report
Testing and guidance
People and staff were supported to take part in testing, and staff received updates on coronavirus guidance and protective equipment.
“Staff had received regular updates about government guidance in relation to COVID-19.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are infection prevention and control arrangements being kept up to date now?
- 02How do you support people who need to isolate, including their social contact and activities?
- 03How are staff allocated or zoned if there is an infection risk in the home?
- 04How are residents and staff supported with testing?
- 05How are people at higher risk from infection identified and supported?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only, so it did not provide ratings for the other four questions or an overall quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 December 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 Rosemanor 2 Residential Care Home
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- January 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Rosemanor 2 Residential Care Home →
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Rosemanor 2 Residential Care Home →
- September 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Croydon
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 £1,230 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.