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 found to be safe and protected from avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, safer recruitment, suitable risk assessments, safe medicines systems and infection control arrangements, although they discussed consistent and safe use of protective equipment.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear staff roles, positive feedback about management, quality checks and action plans that were monitored. People, relatives and staff could share their views.
What inspectors found, September 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-managed care and improvements since the previous inspection, with a reminder about consistent use of protective equipment.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 21 August 2020, with 48 hours' notice because of COVID-19 risks. One inspector spoke with people, staff, relatives and a health professional. They reviewed care records, staff recruitment files, medicine records and management information.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safer recruitment checks, safe medicines practice, risk assessments and a clean, maintained environment. They also found a positive staff culture and systems to monitor quality.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, with a breach about staff recruitment. The provider's action plan had been completed, recruitment had improved and the breach was no longer present. This inspection only assessed Safe and Well-led. The other ratings were carried over from the previous inspection.
Staffing and recruitment
The home followed recruitment checks, including background checks, references and employment history. Staffing levels were judged safe and planned in advance.
“The provider followed safe recruitment processes and followed their policies and procedures to ensure staff employed were suitable for the role.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were stored, administered and checked safely. Records were accurate, and people were supported to receive medicines according to their preferences.
“Medicines were stored, managed and administered safely. Systems were in place to regularly check this.” from the report
Management
Inspectors found clear roles, quality monitoring and a positive staff culture. The previous improvement plan had been completed.
“Systems were in place to monitor and review the quality of the service by the registered manager and provider.” from the report
Atmosphere and support
People and relatives described a welcoming, calm environment. Inspectors also heard that staff provided emotional support and accompanied people to hospital when needed.
“There was a calm and positive atmosphere at the service.” from the report
Protective equipment
needs fixingInspectors discussed with the provider the need for personal protective equipment to be used consistently and safely by staff.
“We discussed with the provider ensuring personal protective equipment (PPE) was consistently used effectively and safely by staff.” from the report
- 01How do you check that staff continue to complete all required recruitment checks?
- 02What have you done to make sure staff use personal protective equipment consistently and safely?
- 03How do you make sure there are enough staff on each shift, including outside normal office hours?
- 04How are medicines checked for accuracy, storage and timely administration?
- 05What changes have been made since the previous inspection, and how do you monitor that they continue?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 September 2020 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, December 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care and better leadership, but staff recruitment was not always safe.
This was an unannounced inspection on the first day and an announced inspection on the second day. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, complaints, incidents and management records.
The home had improved since its previous inspection. Medicines systems, care planning, risk assessments and management had improved. People were described as relaxed and happy, and staff were kind, respectful and responsive.
The home was still not fully safe or well-led because some recruitment checks were incomplete. References were not always independent, two staff identities were not clearly established, and interview records did not always show that suitability had been assessed properly.
The overall rating changed from Inadequate to Requires Improvement. The home was no longer in Special Measures, and it was no longer rated Inadequate in any key question. However, the provider remained in breach of Regulation 19.
Kind and respectful care
People were supported by staff who knew them well and understood their likes, dislikes and preferred routines.
“People were cared for by staff who were kind, caring and respectful.” from the report
Better medicines systems
Medicines records and storage checks were accurate, and staff had clearer systems to follow if a medicines error occurred.
“Medicine administration systems had been reviewed to ensure they were in line with best practice guidelines.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's preferences, routines, health conditions and the support needed to maintain independence.
“Care plans were person centred. They described people's preferences and routines.” from the report
Improved leadership
The home had a more stable management structure, better communication and improved staff morale.
“Since the last inspection there had been changes in the senior management and staff team. The service was calm, structured and stable.” from the report
Good staffing levels
Inspectors found that staffing levels were kept at the level the provider considered safe, and people and relatives said there were enough staff around.
“Staffing levels were kept at the level deemed safe by the provider.” from the report
Recruitment checks were incomplete
seriousSome references came from people who were not impartial. Two staff identities were not clearly established, and interview records did not fully assess candidates' suitability.
“Further improvements were still required as three staff members references had been supplied by people not impartial to the recruitment process.” from the report
Management audits missed problems
needs fixingThe home had reviewed its recruitment audits, but these checks had not found the shortfalls later identified by inspectors.
“However, recruitment audits had not identified the shortfalls we found around references and interviews.” from the report
More activities may be needed
minorActivities were taking place, but one person said there could be more of them.
“However, one person said, "There could be more activities.” from the report
- 01How have you fixed the problems with independent references and identity checks for staff?
- 02How do you now make sure interview records fully assess each candidate's suitability?
- 03What checks are carried out to confirm that the recruitment improvements are being followed?
- 04How often are medicines records, storage temperatures and stock levels audited?
- 05What activities are currently available, and how do you respond when people ask for more?
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating and covered all five key questions, including the care provided and the home environment. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 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
6 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2019Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of North 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 £1,050 to £1,320 a week. 19 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.