CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rosewood Lodge & Brook House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found concerns with cleanliness, maintenance, risk management, and governance.
Inspectors visited Rosewood Lodge & Brook House unannounced in May 2021 to check infection control and safety measures. They spoke with people living there, staff, and reviewed records and the premises.
They found the home was not clean or well maintained, with stains, dust, and strong odours in bathrooms. There were no dedicated cleaning staff and no clear system to monitor cleaning.
Risk assessments were missing or incomplete for some hazards, such as smoking risks and fire safety. Water temperatures were unsafe and emergency equipment was faulty or missing.
Staff recruitment files lacked important checks. Medicines were managed safely but some staff had not completed all training or competency checks. Governance systems were weak with few audits and no recent external reviews.
Staff support people’s choices
Staff helped people to have control over their lives and supported their decisions, including managing risks.
“People were supported to have choice and control of their lives. Where restrictions were in place people had agreed to these.” from the report
Staff know how to protect people
Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse and safeguarding procedures were followed.
“Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.” from the report
People feel supported by manager
People and staff spoke positively about the registered manager who was visible and approachable.
“The registered manager was visible and had an open-door policy.” from the report
Partnership working
The home worked with health and social care professionals to support people’s needs.
“The service worked in partnership with a range of professionals.” from the report
Poor cleanliness and maintenance
seriousThe home was dirty with stained furniture and poor repairs, making it hard to keep clean and safe.
“The home was not clean. There were stains and excessive dust in communal areas and bedrooms. There were strong odours in bathrooms.” from the report
Staff recruitment records incomplete
seriousStaff files were missing important information needed to confirm safe recruitment.
“Staff files did not always contain a second employment reference, the applicant's education history, employment history or photographic identification.” from the report
Cleaning responsibilities unclear
needs fixingThere were no dedicated cleaning staff and care staff had to manage cleaning alongside their duties.
“There were no allocated domestic staff working at the service, this meant cleaning was carried out by care staff.” from the report
- 01What improvements have been made to cleaning and maintenance since the inspection?
- 02How does the home assess and manage risks, especially related to smoking and fire safety?
- 03What systems are in place to ensure staff recruitment checks are complete and up to date?
- 04How does the home monitor and audit quality and safety on a regular basis?
- 05How are people supported to make choices and have control over their daily lives?
This was a focused inspection looking at infection control, safety, and governance following concerns found during a targeted visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 September 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, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with caring improved since the previous inspection.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 10 January 2019. They spoke with three people, three staff members and the registered manager. They reviewed three care plans and records about staffing, medicines, recruitment, quality and safety.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People had enough staff, received support with medicines, and had risk assessments and fire safety arrangements. Staff were trained and supported, and people received help with health appointments, food and their mental health needs.
Inspectors found kind and respectful relationships. People were supported to make choices, keep in touch with family, take part in activities and access the community. Care plans were clear, personalised and regularly reviewed.
The overall rating stayed Good. Caring improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection to Good. Inspectors found no serious risks or concerns from this inspection or the home's ongoing monitoring.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient to keep people safe and meet their needs. The staff team was stable, supporting continuity of care.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to ensure people's safety and meet their needs.” from the report
Kind relationships
People described positive relationships with staff. Inspectors saw staff speaking respectfully and in a pleasant tone.
“People told us they got on well with staff and that staff treated them well.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences and were reviewed regularly. People were involved in deciding the support they wanted.
“People's support plans were clear, person centred and reviewed regularly.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday decisions, go out, keep in touch with family and take part in activities if they wished.
“People were free to go out as they wished.” from the report
Good leadership
Staff said they felt supported and worked well together. The home had quality and safety checks and involved people in decisions about its running.
“There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided.” from the report
Recruitment form needed updating
minorThe latest application form did not ask applicants to give dates of previous employment. This could make it harder to check gaps in work history, although the manager said it would be corrected immediately.
“We did note that the latest application form template did not prompt the applicant to give dates of previous employment.” from the report
- 01Has the recruitment application form been updated to ask for dates of previous employment?
- 02How would you support my relative if their mental health began to deteriorate, and how would this be recorded?
- 03How would my relative receive and manage their medicines, including if they were expected to ask for them at the prescribed times?
- 04What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative, based on their interests?
- 05How would you involve my relative and our family in care planning and decisions, where my relative wants this?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; inspectors spoke with three people and reviewed three care plans, so the findings are based on the evidence available during that visit and the home's monitoring. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 February 2019 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 Lodge & Brook House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- September 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Rosewood Lodge & Brook House →
- February 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Rosewood Lodge & Brook House →
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 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 19 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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.