CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rosewood Villa
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, including visiting, admissions, testing, PPE, cleaning and outbreaks. No safety rating was given.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, December 2021
Rosewood Villa was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control practice during a targeted review.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 10 November 2021. It was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control in response to COVID-19 outbreaks in care homes.
Inspectors found that visits, admissions, cleaning, testing and the use of personal protective equipment were being managed safely. They also found that infection-control policies and risk assessments were up to date.
The home was marked “Inspected but not rated”. This means the inspection did not provide a full quality rating for the home or for the other areas of care.
Safe visiting
The home supported visits from friends and relatives using several arrangements, including pod, window, garden and in-room visits.
“People were supported to see their friends and relatives in a safe manner.” from the report
Infection-control measures
Inspectors found enough PPE, appropriate use of it and increased cleaning of frequently touched areas.
“There was sufficient PPE available and it was used appropriately by staff.” from the report
Safe admissions
People were admitted safely, with specific rooms allocated to help reduce the spread of infection.
“People were admitted in the home safely.” from the report
Up-to-date arrangements
The home had protocols for visiting, cleaning and testing, as well as current risk assessments.
“Effective protocols for visiting, cleaning and testing were in place.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits currently arranged, and are pod, window, garden and in-room visits still available?
- 02How are people and staff currently tested for infection?
- 03How are new admissions managed to reduce the spread of infection?
- 04How often are frequently touched areas cleaned, and how is this checked?
- 05When was the infection prevention and control policy last updated?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the report does not assess the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 December 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, December 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous Requires Improvement rating.
This was an unannounced planned inspection. One inspector and one Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, training information, complaints, policies and maintenance records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found safe medicines management, suitable staffing, clean and well-maintained premises, varied food, good access to healthcare, personalised care and strong community links.
People and relatives gave positive feedback about the staff. Inspectors found a stable team, a welcoming atmosphere and good involvement in care planning and activities. The home supported people's choices and followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
The previous inspection, published in December 2018, rated the service Requires Improvement. The provider had failed to send some required notifications to CQC then. Inspectors said the required improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found medicines were managed safely, including medicines prescribed for use when needed. Pharmacy and medicines optimisation advice was used to support good practice.
“Medicines were managed safely, in line with best practice.” from the report
Stable staff team
People were supported by staff they knew well. The home did not use agency staff and most staff had worked there for several years.
“Agency staff were never used and the majority of staff had worked at the service for several years.” from the report
Kind, personalised care
Staff treated people with affection, dignity and respect. Care plans and daily support reflected people's individual preferences and independence.
“The culture was strongly person-centred and respectful of people's individualities.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could take part in varied group and individual activities. Strong local links helped people stay involved in their community.
“The service had a strong local reputation and staff had ensured strong local links meant people were protected from social isolation and felt part of their community.” from the report
Improved leadership
The provider had acted on the previous inspection findings about CQC notifications. Inspectors found leadership was visible and staff morale was high.
“At this inspection the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 18.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What further end of life care training has staff received since this inspection?
- 02How do you make sure staff feel confident discussing end of life wishes with families?
- 03What changes have you made to the medicines auditing template?
- 04How do residents and relatives influence the current menu, activities and care plans?
- 05How do you check that required notifications are still being sent to CQC on time?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering the premises and care provided, with ratings given for all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 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 Villa
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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
36 live-in carers within about an hour of Newcastle upon Tyne
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 £950 to £1,160 a week. 30 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.