CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Rosewood
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment checks, detailed risk plans and safe medicines management. The environment was clean and well maintained, and incidents were reviewed so lessons could be learned.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health, nutrition and support needs were assessed with input from relevant professionals. Staff had training, supervision and the skills needed to support people.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. They understood verbal and non-verbal communication and involved people and relatives in decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was tailored to people's histories, preferences, routines and goals. People were supported with activities, relationships, religious preferences and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- There was a registered manager, management support and regular checks on quality and safety. Relatives and staff were asked for feedback, and the service used this to make improvements.
What inspectors found, May 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with effective management and support.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 21 March 2018. Rosewood supports eight people with learning disabilities, and all eight people were living there at the time.
Inspectors reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records. They observed care, spoke with staff and relatives, and used observations to understand how people were supported.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The rating remained Good, as it had been at the previous inspection in December 2015.
Safe staffing and risk support
Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient and that staff understood the risks linked to people's health and daily activities.
“The service maintained staffing levels sufficient to meet people's needs safely.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were given as prescribed. Records were complete, medicines were securely stored and regular checks took place.
“People received their medicines as prescribed and these were managed in a safe way.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff built positive relationships with people and supported their emotional wellbeing, privacy and dignity.
“People remained cared for by staff who were caring and compassionate.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's backgrounds, preferences, communication needs and goals. People were supported to take part in activities and maintain relationships.
“People received care tailored to meet their requirements and preferences.” from the report
Involvement and choice
People were supported to make choices where possible, while relatives and advocates were involved in decisions when needed.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits, reviews and feedback to check the service and make improvements.
“The service had systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service provided.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Who is currently managing the home, and has the new manager completed registration with the CQC?
- 02How do you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient when people need one-to-one support or extra help?
- 03How are people's communication dictionaries and care plans kept up to date?
- 04How do you involve relatives in care reviews and decisions about changes in support?
- 05How do you check that advice from health professionals, such as speech and language therapists, is followed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five ratings, based on observations, records, discussions with staff and relatives, and a review of the home and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 May 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 Rosewood
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 October 2010.
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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.