Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Rosglen

Goodpublished 11 February 2020, 6 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Medicines, recruitment, infection control and building safety were managed well, although one incident had not led to the required review of the care plan and risk assessment.
Effective?
Good
Assessments, care planning, training and partnership working supported good outcomes. Inspectors said the admissions process needed to consider more fully whether people were compatible with others already living in the home.
Caring?
Good
Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People and their representatives were involved in care planning, and daily choices were listened to.
Responsive?
Good
Care was personalised to people's needs, communication preferences and interests. The home supported activities, relationships and community links, and complaints were managed well.
Well-led?
Good
The home had effective audits, clear responsibilities and an open management culture. Inspectors wanted to see improvements in admissions, staff support and recruitment embedded, as well as more evidence of good outcomes for all people who had lived there.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2020

Rosglen rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with improvements still needed in admissions, staff support and workforce diversity.

This was the first inspection since the home registered. It was unannounced and took place on 18 December 2019. One inspector spoke with the person living there, staff and professionals, observed daily life and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.

The home supported adults with acquired brain injury, physical disability or sensory impairment, and could support up to six people. One person was living there during the inspection. Inspectors found they were safe, well cared for and positive about the home. Care plans were detailed and personalised, and staff understood the person's needs.

All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found safe medicines systems, suitable staff training, respectful care, support for activities and good management oversight. They also identified minor improvements, including checking whether people were compatible before admission, reviewing every incident properly, improving staff diversity and strengthening support after untoward incidents.

What inspectors praised
  • Personalised care

    Care plans covered people's wider identity, goals and aspirations, not only their physical needs. Staff used them to support people to achieve personal goals.

    “Care plans were highly personalised and gave clear information on how to support the person beyond just their physical needs to ensure their entire person-hood was upheld.” from the report
  • Kind and respectful staff

    Inspectors saw warm interactions and caring conversations. The person living there said staff and managers were caring and approachable.

    “Care staff interacted in a positive and warm manner. It was clear through observation, staff were familiar with the person's needs.” from the report
  • Good health support

    The home worked with health professionals and supported healthier choices. Inspectors saw examples of progress in people's physical and mental wellbeing.

    “Records showed people had been seen by a range of healthcare professionals to ensure their needs were met.” from the report
  • Activities and relationships

    The home supported individual interests, social opportunities and community links. It had its own transport to help people take part in activities outside the home.

    “The service had its own transport to increase flexibility of activities and social opportunities available to people outside of the home.” from the report
  • Good oversight

    Managers used audits, meetings and a wider governance system to monitor safety and quality. Learning from incidents and audits was shared across the provider's services.

    “There was a well-established governance framework in place.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Checking compatibility

    needs fixing

    The assessment process did not always fully consider whether people would be compatible with others in the home. Inspectors had seen periods when relationships in the home did not lead to positive outcomes.

    “We found minor improvements were required to the assessment process to ensure it was a holistic approach which fully considered the compatibility of people living at the service before they were admitted.” from the report
  • Incident reviews

    needs fixing

    One incident had not led to a review of the person's care plan and risk assessment, even though the provider's policy required this.

    “We saw one incident which did not lead to a review of the person's care plan and risk assessment by the management team” from the report
  • Workforce diversity

    needs fixing

    Inspectors found that limited diversity in the staff team had sometimes affected outcomes. Managers said they planned to address this through future recruitment.

    “We saw there were periods where the lack of diversity in the staff team did not always lead to positive outcomes.” from the report
  • Support for staff after incidents

    minor

    Staff gave mixed feedback about the emotional and practical support they received after an untoward incident. Managers said they were already taking steps to improve this.

    “We received mixed comments from staff about the emotional and practical support they received from the management team immediately following an untoward incident.” from the report
  • Evidence for all residents

    minor

    Because only one person was living in the home during the inspection, inspectors had limited information about the outcomes for the two people who had previously lived there.

    “There was a lack of available information and feedback to corroborate they were consistently achieving good outcomes for all people.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How do you now assess whether a new person will be compatible with people already living in the home?
  2. 02What changes have you made to improve the diversity of the staff team?
  3. 03How do you make sure every accident or incident leads to a review of the person's care plan and risk assessment?
  4. 04What emotional and practical support do staff receive after an untoward incident?
  5. 05What evidence can you show of the outcomes achieved by people who have lived in the home since this inspection?

This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five CQC questions, with one person living in the home at the time; inspectors therefore focused mainly on that person's experience. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 February 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Rosglen

Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.

  1. February 2020Goodcurrent rating
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Rosglen →

  2. December 2018

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 December 2018.

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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

At least 99 live-in carers within about an hour of Barnsley

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.

“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
Claire A., about Carla M.
“Ivy was very kind and gentle in all her dealings with my late mother. They got on very well and were able to share a joke and a laugh.”
Robert P., about Rumbidzai Ivy G.
See live-in carers near BarnsleyProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.