CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rotherview
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Targeted inspection found strong infection control, but Rotherview was inspected and not rated.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 7 February 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inspectors also asked about staffing pressures.
Inspectors found that the home had updated infection control policies, trained staff, suitable protective equipment and regular testing. The home was clean, and visiting arrangements followed current guidance.
The service was meeting the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals. The report gives no overall quality rating, and Safe was inspected but not rated.
Infection control training
Staff had completed infection prevention and control training and were observed using protective equipment correctly.
“Staff completed IPC training and were observed to be wearing the correct personal protective equipment (PPE) and following best practice.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
Visitors were tested and given protective equipment. The home kept relatives updated when guidance changed or there were positive COVID-19 cases.
“Visitors needed to take a lateral flow test and were provided with the necessary PPE upon entry to the home.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic. Cleaning products, schedules and infection control audits were in place.
“The home was clean and hygienic throughout. Staff had access to cleaning products and cleaning schedules were in place.” from the report
Communication about the pandemic
Staff and residents held daily meetings to discuss concerns about the pandemic and changes to guidance.
“Staff and people who used the service had a daily 'coffee meeting' to talk about any concerns they had with the pandemic or the changes to guidance and procedures.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you now manage staffing pressures, and what effect have they had on people's care?
- 02What infection prevention and control arrangements are currently in place for staff, visitors and health professionals?
- 03How are relatives told about changes to visiting guidance or positive COVID-19 cases?
- 04How often are cleaning and infection control audits completed, and can families see the results?
- 05How are residents involved in discussing changes to infection control rules?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and staffing pressures; it did not assess the other four key questions and gave no overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 February 2022 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, July 2018
Rotherview was rated Good overall, but inspectors found weaknesses in management checks and medicines oversight.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 16 May 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and the manager. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, training records and management systems.
The home was rated Good for being safe, effective, caring and responsive. People were supported by staff who knew them well, treated them kindly and helped them make choices, stay independent and take part in activities they enjoyed.
The well-led rating was Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that audits did not always identify problems, action plans were not completed on time, and accidents and incidents were not checked for patterns. They also found missing protocols and recording problems for some medicines.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness and respect. People and relatives were consistently positive about the staff team.
“We observed staff interacting with people who used the service and found they were kind, compassionate and dedicated to support people in a person centred way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care was based on each person's needs, wishes and interests. People helped write their support plans and were supported to do things for themselves.
“We looked at support plans and found they were person centred, easy to read and reflected people's current needs and wishes.” from the report
Choice and independence
People chose activities, meals and how they spent their time. Staff supported people to use the community and develop independence safely.
“We saw staff enabled people who used the service to follow their preferred interests and be as independent as possible.” from the report
Safe staffing and safeguarding
There were enough staff with suitable experience, and staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. Recruitment checks were described as robust.
“We could see there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to support people in line with their needs.” from the report
Medicines protocols and records
needs fixingSome PRN and short-course medicines did not have instructions explaining when to give them or when to seek advice. One medicine was not signed for, and the audit did not identify the error.
“People, who had been prescribed a short course of medicines or PRN medicines, had no protocols in place.” from the report
Management checks
needs fixingThe home's audits did not identify all the problems inspectors found. Improvement actions were overdue, and accidents and incidents were not reviewed for patterns or trends.
“The registered manager was unable to show us they had an effective system in place, to enable them, to monitor the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
- 01What has been done to create and regularly review protocols for PRN and short-course medicines?
- 02How do you now check that every medicine given is recorded correctly and that its effect is documented?
- 03What changes have been made to the management audit system since this inspection?
- 04How are accidents and incidents now reviewed to identify repeated problems or trends?
- 05Which actions from the service improvement plan were overdue, and have they now been completed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with checks of care, medicines, staffing, records and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 July 2018 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 Rotherview
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 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.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 March 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
97 live-in carers within about an hour of Rotherham
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. 80 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
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.