CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Rossetti House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, risks were assessed, medicines were generally managed safely and infection controls were in place. However, PRN medicine instructions were not personalised enough, and some medicine records lacked a second signature.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed, staff were trained and healthcare support was available. Care plans did not always give enough detail about food and drink preferences, and staff could not recall whether they had received an appraisal.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw friendly and respectful interactions. People were involved in decisions, their privacy was protected and staff supported independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The home offered activities, trips and support with communication needs. Care plans were of inconsistent quality and did not always record people's preferences, anxiety triggers, support provided during distress, or end of life choices.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive leadership, supportive management and quality monitoring. However, medicine audits had not identified the medicine record and PRN protocol concerns, and attendance at staff meetings was poor.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, but medicines checks and care plan details needed improvement.
Inspectors visited without warning on 25 and 26 October 2022. They spoke with 10 people, three relatives and 10 staff. They reviewed care plans, medicine records, recruitment and training records, and the home's management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were treated kindly. Staff knew people's needs, responded quickly to call bells, supported healthcare appointments and offered activities and choices.
The report also found some gaps. PRN medicine instructions were not personalised enough, and some handwritten medicine records had not been checked and signed by two staff. Care plans did not always contain enough detail about people's preferences, anxiety support, or end of life wishes. The home said it would address these issues.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff understood how to raise safeguarding concerns. Risks such as choking, pressure sores, seizures and emergency evacuation were assessed.
“People told us they felt safe living at the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw relaxed, friendly interactions. Staff knew people well, protected privacy and dignity, and supported people to remain independent.
“We saw and heard positive interactions between people and staff throughout the inspection.” from the report
Good access to healthcare
People were supported with medical appointments and referrals. A nurse practitioner visited weekly, and staff discussed people's clinical needs regularly.
“People were supported to attend appointments.” from the report
Activities and communication
People could join activities, go on trips and access the community. Staff adapted communication for people with sight, hearing or other communication needs.
“The service had a variety of activities such as Knit and Natter, a gardening and a library group.” from the report
Care plans lacked detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not contain enough information about people's preferences, anxiety triggers, what helped during distress, or end of life wishes. The electronic plans were also not always easy to navigate.
“The provider used electronic care plans; these were of an inconsistent quality and were not always easy to navigate.” from the report
Staffing pressure
needs fixingRecruitment and retention had made it difficult to provide the planned staffing levels. Staff gave mixed views about whether there were enough staff, although inspectors saw essential support being provided and call bells answered quickly.
“Difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff had meant it had been challenging to fulfil the level of staffing required.” from the report
Medicine audits missed issues
needs fixingThe home's quality checks covered its services, but medicine audits had not identified the problems found during the inspection. The report made a recommendation about this.
“However, medicine audits did not highlight the concerns we found.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the PRN medicine instructions, and how do you make sure they explain non-medicine steps to support someone who is distressed or anxious?
- 02How are medicine records now checked by two staff, and how do your audits confirm that this is happening?
- 03What extra detail will be included in my relative's care plan about their preferences, anxiety triggers, communication needs and end of life wishes?
- 04How many staff are planned for each unit and shift, and what happens when recruitment or agency staffing affects those numbers?
- 05How do you make sure staff attend team meetings and hear about changes to people's care?
This was an unannounced first inspection of the newly registered care home, covering all five key questions; the previous provider at the premises was rated Good in 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 2023 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 Rossetti House
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2023Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 January 2020.
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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of 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 £1,020 to £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.