CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rosewood House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Most infection-control arrangements were in place, including testing, visiting controls, PPE supplies and cleaning. Inspectors found that staff did not always wear masks when close to residents.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control arrangements but staff did not always wear masks near residents.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 15 June 2021. It looked at how the home was preventing and controlling COVID-19 infections.
Inspectors found many safeguards. Visitors were temperature checked, tested, given PPE instructions and asked to complete contact and health declarations. Staff, visitors and residents had access to testing, and staff had infection-control training.
Inspectors were somewhat assured that PPE was used safely. They found that staff sometimes ate with residents without masks. One staff member was seen drinking near a resident without a mask, which was not in line with government guidance.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give a full service rating or a full set of ratings for all five questions.
Visitor safety
The home had clear arrangements for visitors, including testing, temperature checks, PPE, contact tracing and hand washing.
“Visitors to the service completed a lateral flow test and were only permitted to enter if the test was negative.” from the report
Testing and vaccination support
Routine testing was in place for staff, visitors and residents. The home also supported and encouraged vaccinations, with decisions made with families and health professionals where needed.
“Routine testing was in place for staff, visitors and people who use the service.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff had received extra infection-control training and were being trained to recognise early signs of health deterioration. Staff told inspectors they felt safe at work.
“All staff had received additional infection prevention and control training, and training in RESTORE2 was underway.” from the report
Planning for outbreaks
The provider had policies, checks and contingency plans for managing the pandemic. It had also obtained expert help to improve safety.
“There were clear policies, procedures, quality assurance checks and contingency plans in place in respect of managing the pandemic and keeping people and staff safe.” from the report
Masks were not always worn near residents
needs fixingStaff told inspectors they sometimes ate alongside residents without masks. Inspectors also saw a staff member drinking a hot drink close to a resident without a mask.
“This was not in line with government guidance.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to stop staff eating or drinking close to residents without masks?
- 02How do managers check that staff wear masks whenever they are close to residents?
- 03What is the current process for visitor testing, temperature checks and PPE?
- 04How are new admissions isolated and risk assessed if they have recently lived alone or come from hospital?
- 05When was the home last given a full inspection covering caring, responsive and well-led services?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, and it did not provide ratings for the other four questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 July 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.
What inspectors found, July 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with earlier legal breaches improved but some records still needing attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 28 June 2018. Two inspectors spoke with people living in the home, visitors, staff and a healthcare professional. They observed care and checked care files, staff records, medicines, policies and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were treated with kindness and respect, received enough staff support, and had care planned around their individual needs.
The home had improved since the April 2017 inspection. The earlier problems with medicines, staff training, supervision and management checks had been addressed. Inspectors still asked the home to review ventilation in the medicines room, where recorded temperatures were often at the maximum safe level.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw friendly and respectful interactions. People said staff were kind, caring and attentive.
“We observed the interactions between the whole staff team, the people who lived in the home and any visitors. All interactions were friendly, respectful and genuine.” from the report
Improved medicines safety
The problems found at the previous inspection had been addressed. As-needed medicine instructions were in place and liquid medicines were dated when opened.
“At this inspection we saw protocols were in place for all medicines prescribed on an 'as and when' basis.” from the report
Suitable staffing and training
Staff numbers were adjusted to people's needs and staff had training, induction and supervision to support their work.
“There were sufficient staff on duty at all times to ensure people's needs were met and they were safe.” from the report
Person-centred care
Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. People and relatives were involved where appropriate, and activities were varied.
“People's care plans were detailed and accurately reflected their care and support needs.” from the report
Stronger oversight
The home had introduced regular audits and action plans. These checks helped identify improvements and track whether actions were completed.
“Both the provider and the registered manager had worked together to develop and implement a programme of quality audits and monitoring systems.” from the report
Medicines-room temperature
needs fixingTemperatures in the medicines room were recorded at 25 degrees on most occasions. This was the maximum temperature stated for safely storing medicines, so inspectors asked the home to review the room's ventilation.
“We have asked the provider and registered manager to review the ventilation in the medicines room.” from the report
Some reviews were overdue
minorThere were a few gaps in care-plan reviews. One person's capacity assessment had been completed in 2017 and had not been reviewed since.
“For one person we noted that their assessment had been completed in 2017 and not reviewed since.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to improve ventilation and keep the medicines room at a safe temperature?
- 02How do you make sure every care plan is reviewed on time, including when someone's needs change?
- 03How often are mental capacity assessments reviewed if a person's circumstances or decisions change?
- 04What activities would be available for my relative, and how would you adapt them to their interests and abilities?
- 05How would you support my relative if they later needed palliative or end of life care?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC areas, including the accommodation and personal care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 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 Rosewood House
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 February 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
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Bristol, City of
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 £1,020 to £1,300 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She became a good friend to my mother in law, chatting with her, dancing with her, knitting with her and the list goes on”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.