CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rosemount Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, infection control was effective and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
- 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
- The home had a positive, person-centred culture. Quality checks were effective, staff felt supported and feedback from people and relatives was acted on.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe care, effective management and clear improvements since the last inspection.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 24 January 2023. One inspector spoke with six people, six staff members and five relatives. They reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding, risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
Inspectors found improvements since the previous inspection. These included a new laundry area, food storage area and boiler. The home had also improved how laundry and equipment were managed to reduce the risk of cross contamination.
The overall rating changed from Requires Improvement to Good. The other three key question ratings were not inspected during this visit and were carried over from the last comprehensive inspection.
Improvements to laundry and equipment
The home had improved its laundry arrangements and equipment storage. Inspectors said this reduced the risk of cross contamination.
“Since the last inspection the provider had made improvements to the way laundry was managed and equipment was stored, which meant people were protected from the risk of cross contamination.” from the report
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and knew how to report concerns.
“People told us they felt safe living at the home.” from the report
Staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs promptly. Medicines records contained the information staff needed, and staff were trained and checked as competent.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs promptly.” from the report
Management oversight
The manager and staff understood their responsibilities. Quality checks identified improvements and incidents were investigated so lessons could be learned.
“Quality assurance systems were effective in identifying and generating improvements within the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you checking that the improvements to the laundry area and equipment storage are being maintained?
- 02How do you assess and review risks for my relative as their needs change?
- 03How do you check that medicines continue to be given correctly and on time?
- 04How do people and relatives give feedback, and what recent changes have been made because of it?
- 05What evidence can you provide about the Caring, Effective and Responsive aspects of the service, which were not inspected in this visit?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other key question ratings were carried over from the last comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 March 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, April 2022
Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but infection control and management checks were not always effective.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 February and 1 March 2022. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and managers. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff recruitment files, training information and management records.
People and relatives gave positive feedback. Inspectors found that staff knew people well, care was personalised, medicines were managed safely and there were enough staff. The home was clean and adapted to people's needs.
There were problems with infection control. Personal protective equipment was not always stored well, and laundry and mobility equipment were stored in a bathroom, creating a possible risk of cross-contamination. The manager acted on some issues during the inspection, but the home's checks had not found them beforehand.
The overall rating changed from Good to Requires Improvement. Safe and well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. The other areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were carried forward.
Personalised care
People received care that reflected their needs and preferences. Staff knew people well and supported their activities and contact with relatives.
“People received personalised care and the staff team knew people very well.” from the report
Care planning and risk support
Care plans and risk assessments covered people's needs and personal safety. They were reviewed to keep them relevant.
“People's support plans and risk assessments were in place and reviewed appropriately to ensure they were relevant to their needs.” from the report
Medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were administered, managed and recorded safely. Staff competency was checked regularly.
“People received their medicines safely.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, and recruitment checks were used to make sure suitable staff were employed.
“Staff were recruited safely. Robust checks were in place to ensure appropriate staff were employed.” from the report
Infection control storage
needs fixingProtective equipment was not always stored properly. Laundry and mobility equipment were kept in a bathroom, creating a possible cross-contamination risk.
“Issues regarding airing laundry in a bathroom and storing mobility equipment there also posing a potential cross contamination risk.” from the report
Checks did not find problems
needs fixingThe home's audits had not identified the infection control issues found during the inspection. This led to a Requires Improvement rating for well-led.
“However, had not identified the issues found on inspection but took immediate action.” from the report
Visitor infection precautions
needs fixingInspectors were only somewhat assured that visitors were being protected from catching or spreading infections, and that protective equipment was being used safely.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
- 01Where are laundry, mobility equipment and personal protective equipment stored now, and what risk assessment supports this arrangement?
- 02What extra competency checks and spot checks were introduced for staff using personal protective equipment, and how often are they repeated?
- 03How do your audits now check infection control, and how do you make sure problems are identified promptly?
- 04What arrangements are currently used to prevent visitors from catching or spreading infections?
- 05Which ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection focused on Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 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.
Every inspection of Rosemount Home
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2022Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
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 £960 to £1,210 a week. 42 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.