CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rosevale
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were assessed and managed, protective equipment was used safely, and the home was clean. They were also told that measures were in place to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection, although inspectors noted that people's rights to receive visitors were promoted.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection. Inspectors found that people could have visits, but some relatives were not aware of flexible visiting arrangements.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, but visiting arrangements were not always clearly communicated.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 26 September 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, and asked about staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors found that staff used protective equipment properly. The home was clean and well maintained. Infection risks were assessed, people were monitored for signs of infection, and isolation was used when needed.
People were supported to receive visits and could choose where visits took place. However, some relatives did not know that visiting arrangements were flexible, so the manager said this would be communicated more clearly.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means this report does not give a full quality rating for the home or a separate rating for all five areas of care.
Infection control
Inspectors found that the home had effective arrangements to reduce the spread of infection, including monitoring, isolation when needed and an up-to-date policy.
“We were assured that the provider was responding effectively to risks and signs of infection.” from the report
Clean and maintained building
The home was tidy, well maintained and cleaned regularly during the day.
“The building was tidy and well maintained with regular cleaning of the service throughout the day.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff used protective equipment properly, and guidance was available for staff and visitors.
“Staff appropriately wore personal protective equipment (PPE) to reduce the risk of spreading infection.” from the report
Family visits
People were supported to receive visits and could choose where visits took place. Alternative arrangements were available if there was a COVID-19 outbreak.
“People could choose where they wanted their visits to take place based on their preference.” from the report
Visiting information
minorSome relatives were not aware that visiting arrangements were flexible. The manager said further action would be taken to make availability clearer.
“However, some relatives were not aware of flexible visiting arrangements.” from the report
- 01How are flexible visiting arrangements explained to families now?
- 02What happens to family visits if there is an infection outbreak?
- 03How are staffing pressures managed if staff are absent because of COVID-19?
- 04Can you show us the home's latest ratings or information about areas not covered by this inspection?
- 05How are new residents assessed and monitored for infection when they move into the home?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 October 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, July 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and well-managed care, with some records and medicines checks needing closer attention.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 22 and 24 May 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, visitors, staff and a healthcare professional. They also reviewed care records, recruitment files, training records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, clean premises, suitable training and good access to healthcare.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff offered choices, supported independence and provided activities and outings. Care plans were generally detailed and personalised, although some contained old information.
Inspectors found no serious risks or concerns and the overall Good rating stayed the same as at the previous inspection. They did identify smaller issues, including occasional missing records for prescribed creams, one expired authorisation and quality audits that did not always clearly show when actions were completed.
Kind and respectful staff
People and visitors gave very positive feedback about staff. Inspectors saw staff offering reassurance, choices and support in a warm and respectful way.
“We observed people were treated with kindness, respect and compassion throughout our inspection.” from the report
Safe staffing and premises
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. The building was clean and checks were carried out on safety equipment and utilities.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans usually included detailed information about people's routines, preferences and communication needs. Plans were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“In the main, care plans were very detailed and contained clear information about people's preferences, likes and dislikes.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could join a wide range of activities, go out locally and use the gardens. The home also worked with local schools, churches and healthcare partners.
“The provider employed an activities coordinator, and they told us about the extensive range of activities on offer, planned according to people's interests.” from the report
Positive management culture
Staff described the home as well run and said morale was good. The registered manager understood their responsibilities and regular audits were used to monitor care.
“Comments from staff showed there was a positive culture.” from the report
Expired authorisation
needs fixingOne person's authorisation under the Mental Capacity Act had expired. The manager sent the renewal on the first inspection day and introduced diary reminders.
“We noted one person's DoLS authorisation had expired and the registered manager sent this on the first day of our inspection.” from the report
Audit records
minorSome quality audits did not clearly show what had been done or when actions were completed. The manager agreed to improve the detail and consistency.
“However, some audits would benefit from more detail and clarity to show when actions were completed.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure prescribed creams are recorded every time they are given?
- 02How do you track and renew Mental Capacity Act or DoLS authorisations before they expire?
- 03How often are care plans checked for old or inaccurate information?
- 04How do your quality audits show that identified actions have been completed?
- 05What changes have been made to the environment to support people living with dementia?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five areas, and the Good ratings in each area were confirmed. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 July 2018 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 Rosevale
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 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
37 live-in carers within about an hour of York
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 £1,270 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.