CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rotherbank
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, thorough recruitment checks and systems to manage medicines, accidents and individual risks. This rating had improved from Requires improvement at the previous inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before they moved in, and staff had relevant training and regular supervision. People had access to healthcare, support with food and drink, and care that followed the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Inspectors saw people being treated with dignity and respect and involved in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. The home offered activities, supported contact with relatives and had systems for handling complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The managers were actively involved in the home and staff said they were supported. Audits, feedback and an improvement plan were used to monitor and improve the service.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and well-organised care, with the safe rating improved from Requires improvement.
The inspection took place over 2 and 5 August 2019. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They also observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training and good access to healthcare.
People were treated with dignity and respect. Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences, and activities and visits were available. The safe rating had improved from Requires improvement at the previous inspection, while the other four ratings remained Good.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found suitable staffing levels and a stable team. Recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“There were enough staff to ensure people had access to the care that met their needs and protected them from risks.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as caring and welcoming. Inspectors saw people being treated with dignity and involved in decisions.
“People were very positive about the care they received and told us staff were very caring.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, preferences and communication needs. Staff supported independence and offered a range of activities.
“People received care and support specific to their needs, preferences and routines.” from the report
Active management
The management team knew people and staff well and used audits, feedback and observations to improve the home.
“The management team had developed a clear improvement plan to continue to update and amend the service to respond to people's changing needs and keep up with good practice guidance.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and update my relative's care plan after they move in?
- 02How would you support my relative if their mobility or risk of falling changed?
- 03How would you support my relative's food, drink and dental care needs?
- 04What activities and religious or social opportunities would be available for my relative?
- 05How would you record and follow my relative's wishes about end of life care and resuscitation?
This was a planned comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the safe rating improved from Requires improvement and the other ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 September 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, February 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but safety checks for medicines, diabetes and infection control needed improvement.
Inspectors visited without warning on 16 and 19 January 2017. They spoke with people living in the home, a relative, friends, staff and health professionals. They also observed care and checked care plans, staff records and management records.
People generally felt safe, supported and respected. Staff were available, caring and trained. Care was tailored to people's needs, including the needs of people living with dementia. People were supported with food, healthcare, activities and contact with the local community.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe. Inspectors found unclear guidance about blood sugar monitoring, weaknesses in medicines storage and recording, and staff not consistently following infection control guidance about nails. The manager took action during the inspection, but the changes needed time to become established.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. This means the home was providing a generally good standard of care, but safety arrangements were not yet consistently reliable.
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and treated them gently. They protected privacy and dignity and encouraged people to make choices.
“Staff were observed to interact with people in a kind and caring manner.” from the report
Personalised dementia care
Care plans described people's communication, interests and dementia-related needs. Staff used this information to provide suitable support and activities.
“People's care was person centred to meet their individual needs.” from the report
Good staffing and training
People said staff were available and not rushed. The home did not use agency staff, and staff received training and regular supervision.
“No agency staff were used at the service to ensure people received continuity of care, which is important for people living with dementia.” from the report
Responsive management
The management team listened to people and acted on feedback. The home also reviewed incidents and completed improvements identified in 2016.
“People's views about the service had been sought and acted upon.” from the report
Diabetes monitoring guidance
seriousStaff did not have clear guidance about who should monitor people's blood sugar levels. This could have led to monitoring being missed or people waiting for breakfast.
“This created a potential risk that people either had to wait for their breakfast until the District Nurses had visited or that their blood sugar monitoring would be missed.” from the report
Medicines safety
seriousThe medicines trolley was not secured to the wall, and there were weaknesses in recording when some creams and eye drops were opened. Medicines competence checks were also only carried out every three years.
“The registered manager had not ensured they had consistently followed good practice guidance in relation to the storage, usage and recording of people's medicines.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure blood sugar monitoring is completed at the right time, and who is responsible for it?
- 02How often are staff medicines competencies now checked, and how do you record these checks?
- 03How do you check that the medicines trolley is securely fixed and that medicines records are complete?
- 04What daily checks confirm that staff follow the infection control guidance about nails?
- 05How will you show families that the safety improvements made during the inspection have been maintained?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home; it reviewed three people's care plans, three staff records and other service records. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 February 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 Rotherbank
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 August 2014.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.