CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rosewood Manor
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention, testing, personal protective equipment, visiting arrangements and outbreak management were being handled safely. The provider also described measures to reduce risks from COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- 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, February 2022
Rosewood Manor: targeted inspection, not rated; inspectors found good infection control and visiting arrangements.
Inspectors visited the home on 10 February 2022. The visit was announced 48 hours beforehand and focused on infection prevention, visiting arrangements and any COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
Inspectors found monthly infection control audits, with improvements made when needed. Visitors had to show a negative COVID-19 test and answer questions about symptoms and recent contact with COVID-19.
Staff used a separate entrance, changed into uniform and put on personal protective equipment before contact with residents. Inspectors were assured that infection risks, testing, personal protective equipment and visiting arrangements were being managed.
This was not a full inspection and no overall quality rating was given. The safe question was recorded as “Inspected but not rated”.
Regular infection control checks
The home carried out monthly infection prevention and control audits and acted on the results. Extra clinical waste bins and supplies for gloves and aprons had been provided.
“Infection prevention and control audits were carried out monthly and action was taken to make improvements where required.” from the report
Visitor screening
Visitors had to show a negative COVID-19 test and were checked for symptoms and recent contact with someone who had tested positive.
“All visitors to the service were required to show a negative COVID-19 test and were assessed for risks such as recent contact with a person testing positive for COVID-19 or displaying any symptoms of COVID-19.” from the report
Staff protective arrangements
Staff used a separate entrance, changed into uniform and put on personal protective equipment before having contact with residents.
“Staff entered the service through a separate entrance and changed into their uniform and put on their personal protective equipment before having any contact with people.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What measures are currently in place to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures?
- 02How often are infection prevention and control audits carried out now, and what recent improvements have resulted from them?
- 03What are the current rules for visitors, including testing and checks for symptoms or recent COVID-19 contact?
- 04How are staff and visiting professionals meeting the vaccination or exemption requirements currently in force?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not assess the other four key questions or provide an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 February 2022 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 2022
Rosewood Manor was rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some improvements still being completed.
This was the home’s first inspection since it registered on 28 January 2021. The visit was unannounced and took place on 16 December 2021. Two inspectors reviewed information, spoke with four people who lived there and spoke with 14 staff members.
The inspection was partly prompted by concerns about staffing and managing risks. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from these concerns. Staffing numbers had recently increased, medicines were being given safely, and infection control arrangements were generally followed.
People described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors found personalised care, activities, support with healthcare and good systems for checking quality. The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the first rating, so there was no earlier rating to compare it with.
Safe staffing
Staffing numbers had increased and inspectors saw staff available to support people. People said they did not wait long for help when using their call bells.
“Staffing numbers had recently increased, and staff deployment had improved to ensure increased support and supervision for people who required it.” from the report
Kind, respectful care
People were supported by kind staff and were involved in choices about their care. Staff had time to listen and support independence.
“People were supported and cared for by kind and compassionate staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people’s preferences and needs. The resident of the day initiative helped people request changes to their care and support.
“People received personalised care. Care plans were developed to include people's personal preferences and individual needs.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People had a range of activities and were supported to maintain relationships and take part in interests. They could use communal and outside areas.
“People were supported to go out into the local town and had a variety of activities to choose from.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits, meetings and an improvement plan to identify risks and changes needed. Lessons were recorded after incidents.
“There were comprehensive and robust systems and processes in place to monitor quality performance and identify risk.” from the report
Isolation signage
minorInspectors found no door sign showing that one person was isolating after a hospital admission. The provider took immediate action when this was raised.
“However, there was no door signage indicating a person was in isolation following a hospital admission.” from the report
Care observations still being introduced
minorSenior staff had started observing care to check it was dignified and person-centred, but this process was not yet fully in place during the inspection.
“This process was new and had not been fully implemented at the time of our inspection.” from the report
Earlier medicines improvements
needs fixingThe provider’s improvement plan had identified weaknesses in medicines storage and administration practices. The report says action had been taken to make these processes safe.
“The provider's service improvement plan had identified the storage of medicines and staff administration practices required improvement.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure staffing levels and staff deployment remain sufficient at mealtimes and when people need extra supervision?
- 02How do you check that isolation signs and other infection control instructions are always in place when needed?
- 03Have observations of care now been fully implemented, and what happens when they identify a concern?
- 04How are families involved in care plan reviews and decisions about changes to a person’s care?
- 05What checks are now used to make sure medicines storage and administration remain safe?
This was the home’s first comprehensive inspection and covered all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control; it was also prompted in part by concerns about staffing and risk management. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 February 2022 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 Manor
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2022GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 January 2021.
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 Leicestershire
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 £1,260 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
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.