CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Rosemount Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control and measures to manage COVID-19 staffing pressures.
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, carried out on 2 February 2022 and announced the day before. Inspectors also asked about staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, supporting testing, managing visits and admissions, and following shielding and social distancing rules. They were also assured that the infection control policy was up to date.
The home was clean, with extra cleaning of high-touch areas. The manager had acted promptly on advice from infection control specialists and had reduced agency use where possible.
The overall service and Safe question were marked 'Inspected but not rated'. This means the inspection checked specific areas but did not give a full quality rating.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements to prevent and manage infections, including safe use of protective equipment and testing.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and had extra cleaning in place for areas touched frequently.
“The service was clean throughout, with additional cleaning in place for high touch areas.” from the report
Staffing continuity
The manager had reduced agency use where possible and sought consistent agency staff to support continuity of care.
“The registered manager had reduced agency usage where possible and requested consistent agency staff to retain a continuity of care and lessen the impact on people.” from the report
Keeping guidance current
The provider reviewed its policies as COVID-19 guidance changed.
“The provider kept up to date with regularly changing guidance and reviewed and updated policies accordingly.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current staffing levels, and how often are agency staff being used?
- 02How do you keep agency staff consistent so residents receive continuity of care?
- 03What arrangements are currently in place for visits, testing and protective equipment?
- 04How do you support residents who are affected emotionally or physically by isolation?
- 05How do you respond when infection prevention and control specialists give advice?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 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.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home was not always well-led and improvements still needed to become established.
This was a focused inspection prompted by concerns about staffing, personal and nursing care, communication and medicines. Inspectors reviewed records, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care and contacted other professionals. The inspection activity took place between 12 April and 20 May 2021, including a site visit on 6 May.
Inspectors found substantial improvements. People were receiving safe, effective and person-centred care. Medicines were being administered safely, care records gave staff useful guidance, and staff worked with health professionals. People and relatives generally described staff as kind, caring and supportive.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because there was no registered manager, communication with some relatives was still not effective, and inspectors had not yet seen enough time pass to know whether improvements would last.
Safe medicines
The report says medicines were administered safely. The provider had acted on recommendations from the community medicines optimisation team.
“Medicines were administered safely. Improvements had been made to medicines management as a result of recent safeguardings” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives were positive about the care. Inspectors found staff treated people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect.
“Staff interacted calmly, attentively and warmly with people.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records included people's histories, preferences and health needs. Staff used this information to provide more appropriate care and support.
“People's care records were detailed and documented their history, preferences and health and mental health care needs.” from the report
Working with professionals
The home had improved communication with visiting professionals and followed advice to meet people's health and care needs.
“There was improved communication between staff and visiting professionals and staff followed guidance provided to ensure people's needs were met.” from the report
Leadership was not yet consistent
needs fixingA registered manager had left and no replacement had been appointed. Inspectors said there had not been enough time to confirm that recent improvements would last.
“However, there hadn't yet been sufficient time to be assured improvements were sustained and changes were embedded.” from the report
Communication with relatives
needs fixingSome people and relatives said they had not been kept fully informed about changes at the home. The management team said this was still being addressed.
“However, some people and relatives' feedback received during the inspection stated that communication had not always been effective.” from the report
Staff continuity
needs fixingA number of staff, including the manager, had left. Agency staff were being used while recruitment took place, although inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient at the inspection.
“A number of staff, including the manager, had left and whilst new staff were being recruited regular agency staff were working into the home.” from the report
- 01Who is currently responsible for the home while there is no registered manager, and when do you expect a registered manager to be appointed?
- 02How are you checking that the recent improvements in care, medicines and record-keeping are being sustained?
- 03How will you keep relatives informed about changes and about their family member's care?
- 04How many regular agency staff are currently being used, and what are you doing to improve continuity of care?
- 05What person-centred activities are currently available for residents who want to take part?
This was a focused inspection reviewing all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe; it was the first inspection of the newly registered service, while the previous provider's last rating was Good in 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 June 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.
Every inspection of Rosemount Care Home
6 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2021Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 May 2020.
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
30 live-in carers within about an hour of North Tyneside
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 £950 to £1,130 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.