CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Roseville Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, although some medicines guidance and records still needed improvement.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection carried out over four visits in January and February 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and an external professional. They reviewed care records, medicines records and other information about the home.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were managed, staffing levels were monitored, people were protected from abuse and infection control arrangements were in place.
People were described as receiving kind and personalised care from staff who knew them well. Care plans, consent records and management systems had improved since the previous inspection. Inspectors made a recommendation about clearer guidance and records for some medicines, including creams, patches and medicines taken when needed.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff giving reassuring, meaningful and compassionate support. People were treated as individuals and involved in decisions about their care.
“We saw lots of examples of kind and caring support during our inspection.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. People had access to activities such as crafts, games and entertainers.
“Care plans were detailed and personalised. This helped to ensure people received support that responded to their needs and preferences.” from the report
Some medicines records needed clearer information
needs fixingInspectors found that guidance and records for some creams, patches and medicines taken when needed were not always clear. They recommended that the provider review these arrangements.
“We recommend that the provider reviews the guidance and records kept for creams, patches, when required medicines and people's preferences around how they take their medicines.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the guidance and records for creams, patches and medicines taken when needed?
- 02How will you record and follow a person's preferences about how they take their medicines?
- 03How many agency staff are currently being used, and how are you maintaining continuity for residents while recruitment continues?
- 04How are care plans and records checked to make sure they remain accurate and up to date?
- 05How are residents and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and giving feedback?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection of the whole service, including all five CQC questions and infection prevention and control, to check improvements required after the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 February 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, March 2021
Targeted inspection; the overall rating remained Requires Improvement, with unsafe medicines management and inaccurate records.
This was a targeted inspection on 23 September 2020. Inspectors checked whether earlier concerns had been addressed, especially the breach about safe care and treatment. They also checked infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found that medicines were still not always managed safely. Creams were not always applied as prescribed, some instructions were wrong or incomplete, and covert medicines did not always follow the agreed paperwork. Records about people's capacity and best-interest decisions were also not always accurate or complete.
There were some positive findings about infection control, including testing, admissions and preventing visitors from spreading infection. However, inspectors found social distancing, PPE disposal, furniture layout and cleaning product labelling problems.
This inspection did not give new ratings for the individual questions. The previous overall rating of Requires Improvement remained in place because the inspection was targeted and did not cover the whole service.
Infection prevention
Inspectors were assured about preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections, safe admissions, testing and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Management response
The management team understood its regulatory responsibilities and responded positively to the inspection advice.
“The registered manager assisted us throughout the inspection, listened to the advice given and quickly acted upon any issues raised.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousSome medicines were not given as prescribed. Instructions for as-needed medicines and thickener were sometimes wrong or incomplete, and covert medicines did not always follow the agreed paperwork.
“Medicines were not always managed safely.” from the report
Records about decisions
needs fixingMental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were not always recorded clearly or accurately. This made it harder to show that decisions were lawful and based on the person's circumstances.
“Mental capacity assessments had not been clearly or accurately documented.” from the report
Infection control shortfalls
needs fixingInspectors saw social distancing problems and found that PPE disposal procedures were not understood by everyone. Some furniture arrangements did not allow safe distances, and some cleaning products were not labelled correctly.
“The arrangement of furniture in lounge and dining areas did not always allow a safe distance between people using the service.” from the report
Audits missed problems
needs fixingThe home had quality checks, but they did not identify all the issues found by inspectors. Some care records were not current or accurate, increasing the risk of harm.
“These audits had effectively identified some areas where improvement was required, however, they had failed to pick up all of the issues we found during our inspection.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure every medicine, including creams and thickener, is given exactly as prescribed?
- 02How do you check that instructions for as-needed and covert medicines are correct and regularly reviewed?
- 03How are mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions now recorded and checked?
- 04What has been changed in the lounges and dining areas to maintain safe distances?
- 05When was the last medicines and care-record audit, and what problems did it identify and resolve?
This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns under Safe, Effective and Well-led, plus infection prevention and control; it did not assess the full five key questions and did not change the previous ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 March 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 Roseville Care Centre
2 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 May 2018.
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
45 live-in carers within about an hour of Stockton-on-Tees
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 £1,190 a week. 40 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“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.