CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rosewood Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm. Inspectors found robust staff checks, suitable risk assessments, safe equipment and safe medicines records, with no gaps in the medicine administration records checked.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training, regular supervision and appraisals. People received suitable food, healthcare support and care based on assessments of their needs and preferences.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed to be calm, patient, kind and respectful. People were involved in decisions about their care and were supported to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's individual needs, preferences, communication needs and equality characteristics. People took part in varied activities and were supported to keep in touch with relatives and friends.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and provider had improved recruitment, assessments, care plans and quality checks since the previous inspection. Feedback was welcomed and used as part of service improvement.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with clear improvements since the last inspection.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 11 January 2023. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They observed care and checked care files, staff records and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe and happy. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines management, good training, kind staff, varied activities and care plans that reflected people's needs and choices.
The previous inspection, published in August 2021, rated the home Requires Improvement and found a breach of Regulation 17 about good governance. The provider was given a requirement notice and completed an improvement plan. At this inspection, inspectors found that the earlier shortfalls had been addressed and the home was no longer in breach.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors that people felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and knew how to report concerns.
“People were kept safe from avoidable harm because staff knew them well and understood how to protect them from abuse.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people patiently and with dignity. Relatives and professionals also gave positive feedback about the care.
“Staff were kind, respectful and treated people with dignity.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home had acted on earlier concerns about boredom and limited interaction. People took part in activities such as music, dancing, baking and arts and crafts.
“Staff developed and followed activity programmes to ensure people were engaged.” from the report
Improvements in management
The provider had addressed the previous shortfalls in recruitment, assessments, care plans and quality systems. The home was no longer in breach of Regulation 17.
“The shortfalls we had identified at our last inspection were addressed.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's wishes, preferences, communication needs and equality characteristics. Staff supported people to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“People had choice and control to meet their needs and preferences because their care plans were written from their views.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you keep the improvements to care plans, risk assessments and quality checks under review?
- 02How do you decide whether there are enough staff for the people living here each day?
- 03How are activities planned for each person's interests, abilities and cultural or faith needs?
- 04How will you support someone if they later need end of life care, including staff training?
- 05How can relatives give feedback or raise a concern, and how will the home respond?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control, following the previous Requires Improvement rating and concerns about safety. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 January 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, August 2021
Rosewood Lodge rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective care but weaknesses in safety, activities and management.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 22 June 2021. They spoke with seven people, seven staff and two relatives, and reviewed care records, recruitment files, medicines information and management records. Infection control arrangements during COVID-19 were also checked.
People were generally treated with kindness and respect. Staff were available, trained and supported people with food, drink, healthcare and communication. The home followed safeguards around consent and people's freedom, and inspectors found suitable infection control arrangements.
Improvements were needed in staff recruitment checks, controlled medicines procedures, risk assessments, care plan records and equipment servicing. Some people also felt bored and lonely. The provider breached Regulation 17 on good governance and was asked to send an action plan.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives said staff were kind and respectful. Inspectors observed dignified and patient care.
“We observed staff providing dignified and respectful care to people during our inspection.” from the report
Staff available
Rotas showed suitable staffing levels, and inspectors saw staff respond promptly when people called for help.
“We saw staff attended to people promptly when they called for assistance.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff received relevant training, induction, supervision and annual appraisals to support them in their roles.
“Staff completed training courses to perform their roles effectively.” from the report
Support for health and nutrition
People were supported to choose food and drinks, have their nutrition monitored and access healthcare when needed.
“People were supported to eat and drink to maintain their diet and health.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements for PPE, testing, visiting and preventing or managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousSome long-serving staff had not had recent criminal background checks. One person's immigration and work permit status had not been confirmed.
“Robust systems were not in place to recruit staff safely.” from the report
Medicines procedures
seriousThere was no suitable controlled drugs procedure. Expired medicines belonging to someone who had left the home were still in the refrigerator.
“There was not a suitable policy or procedure for managing and administering controlled drugs (CD).” from the report
Care and risk records
needs fixingChanges in people's health risks were not always added to their risk assessments, and care plans were not always consistent.
“Risks to people's health were assessed but we found changes to people's risks were not always being updated in their assessments.” from the report
Meaningful activities
needs fixingSome people said they were bored or lonely. Inspectors saw people sitting alone for long periods and did not see regular use of the garden.
“Some people in the home told us they felt lonely and had little to do.” from the report
Management oversight
seriousMany policies had not been reviewed or updated for several years, and quality checks had not found all the problems identified by inspectors.
“These issues meant the provider was not always assessing, monitoring and improving the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Bathing equipment servicing
needs fixingBath lifts were being used but were not regularly serviced as required by the home's manual handling policy.
“Bath lifts to help people in and out of the bath if needed, were being used but they were not being regularly serviced.” from the report
- 01Have all long-serving staff now had current criminal background checks, and has the outstanding work permit check been completed?
- 02How are controlled drugs checked, recorded, stored and disposed of now?
- 03How do you make sure changes in a person's health are promptly added to their risk assessment and care plan?
- 04What regular activities and outdoor opportunities will be available for my relative, and how will you check they are meaningful?
- 05Have the bath lifts been professionally inspected and serviced, and how often will this happen?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control; it was the first inspection after registration under the new provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 August 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 Rosewood Lodge
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2021Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 April 2020.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Redbridge
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. 75 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.