CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rosewood Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were observed to be safe, with detailed risk assessments and enough staff. Medicines were stored and given safely, with no gaps or omissions found in medicines records.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and reviewed. Staff had suitable training and supervision, and worked with GPs, nurses and other health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described as caring and knowledgeable about people's preferences. Inspectors saw people being treated with dignity, privacy and respect, while being encouraged to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans contained detailed personal information and activities were based on people's interests. People could make choices about food, activities and their daily routines, and information was available in accessible formats.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team was described as approachable and supportive. Audits, meetings, feedback and action plans were used to monitor quality and make improvements.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rosewood Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with strong management.
Inspectors visited on 2 and 4 July 2019. The first visit was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable care plans and good support from health professionals. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and were supported to make choices and stay independent.
The home had activities, personalised care and ways for people and relatives to give feedback. Managers used audits and incidents to make improvements. The previous inspection was also rated Good, so there was no change in the overall rating.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were stored and administered safely, and the records checked showed no omissions.
“We observed there were no gaps or omissions in the Medicines administration record (MAR) charts, which demonstrated people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them in a calm and respectful way. People were involved in decisions and their privacy was respected.
“The interactions between people and staff were positive, caring and inclusive.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's backgrounds, interests, preferences and what could make them anxious or happy. Activities included group and one-to-one options.
“Care plans were individualised, with a lot of personal information about people.” from the report
Good management and improvement
The management team was visible and approachable. Audits and reviews led to actions such as replacing a stained carpet and reviewing medicines after falls.
“There continued to be effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and review my relative's individual care needs before they move in?
- 02How do you make sure medicines are given safely and records remain complete?
- 03What activities would be suitable for my relative's interests, abilities and communication needs?
- 04How would you support my relative to remain independent while managing risks such as falls?
- 05How would you involve our family in care reviews and respond if we raised a concern?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided; all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 July 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.
What inspectors found, January 2017
Rosewood Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found caring, safe support, with some records and activity arrangements needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 December 2016. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, care workers and health and social care professionals. They observed care and checked bedrooms, communal areas, the kitchen, gardens, policies and records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives said they felt safe and were satisfied with the care. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable medicines arrangements, clean premises, personalised care plans, activities and good links with health professionals.
Inspectors also found some issues. Emergency evacuation plans did not say whether people took medicines that could affect their response. Three senior care workers had not completed their refresher competency assessments. The home agreed to improve these points, and brighter lighting was installed on the path after the inspection.
Before the inspection, the home had voluntarily stopped new admissions for a period because staff had found it difficult to meet some people's needs. Some people with higher needs moved elsewhere. Admissions had restarted after needs were reassessed and feedback was positive.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described care workers as kind, respectful and reassuring. Inspectors observed pleasant, gentle interactions and prompt support when someone slipped.
“The carers are really good, respectful and kind” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's needs, backgrounds, choices and preferences. The home also acted on individual wishes, including food, religious and cultural preferences.
“Care plans were comprehensive, up to date and addressed the needs of people.” from the report
Staff training and support
Recruitment checks, induction, training, supervision and appraisals were in place. Inspectors found care workers knowledgeable about people's needs.
“Care workers had been carefully recruited and provided with a comprehensive induction and on-going training to enable them to care effectively for people.” from the report
Management checks
The registered manager and senior company staff carried out audits covering areas such as medicines, care records, incidents, complaints and maintenance. The report says identified deficiencies were acted on.
“Deficiencies identified had been responded to.” from the report
Emergency evacuation information
needs fixingSome personal emergency and evacuation plans did not record whether people took night sedation or other medicines that could affect their response. The manager said this information would be added.
“We however, noted that these did not contain information on whether people were taking night sedation or other medicines which may affect their response.” from the report
Medicine competency checks
needs fixingThree senior care workers had not completed their refresher competency assessments that year. The manager said arrangements had been made for these assessments.
“We noted that three senior carer workers had not received their refresher competency assessments this year.” from the report
More suitable activities
minorOne relative and two people said more activities were needed for people who wanted them. The manager agreed to consult people and relatives about this.
“more activities were needed to ensure that people who wanted to were provided with more appropriate activities.” from the report
Incomplete complaint record
needs fixingThe details of one complaint were not fully recorded in the complaints book. The manager said the information was in an email and agreed to add it to the book.
“However, full details of the initial complaint had not been included in the complaints book.” from the report
Relatives' meetings
minorThere were no minutes of relatives' meetings during the previous nine months. The manager said another meeting would be organised.
“We noted that there were no minutes of relatives' meetings held within the past nine months.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every emergency evacuation plan includes medicines that could affect a person's response?
- 02Have all senior care workers completed their refresher medicines competency assessments, and how are these checks kept up to date?
- 03What activities are currently available for people who want more suitable or individual activities?
- 04How are complaints recorded from the first contact through to the final response?
- 05How do you assess whether the home can meet a person's needs before offering admission, especially where needs are high?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five areas, with ratings given for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 January 2017 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 Residential Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Rosewood Residential Care Home →
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Rosewood Residential Care Home →
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 December 2010.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.