CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rough Lee Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found suitable safeguarding, risk management, staffing, recruitment, medicines and infection control arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, and care plans included people's needs and professional advice. People were supported with food, drink, health care and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw positive interactions and found that privacy, dignity, equality and independence were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People had choices about activities, communication, food and how their care was provided.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team was described as open and supportive. Audits, meetings and action plans were used to monitor care and respond to people's views.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rough Lee Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care across all five areas.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 14 and 15 November 2019. One inspector spoke with five people living in the home, a relative and three care staff. They also checked care records, staff recruitment records, risk management, maintenance, meetings and quality checks.
The home supported 15 people at the time, with space for up to 17 adults with physical disabilities. Inspectors found that people felt safe, staff understood their needs, medicines were given as prescribed and the home was clean and well maintained.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care plans reflected people's choices and interests, and people were supported to stay independent, access health care, keep relationships and take part in activities.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, published in May 2017.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and reassured. Staff had safeguarding training and risk assessments were reviewed regularly.
“People told us they felt safe in the home and reassured by the care and support provided.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described a friendly, caring atmosphere. Staff supported people's dignity, equality and independence.
“A relative told us, "When I visit there is always a lovely atmosphere, it feels like someone's home.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records included people's preferences, interests and backgrounds. People were involved in reviews and decisions about their care.
“Care records were highly person centred and gave a clear picture of the person's interests and background such as previous employment, family life and hobbies.” from the report
Good management checks
The management team used audits, meetings and action plans to check care quality and respond to people's views.
“The management team had robust audits of care practice and records in place.” from the report
More end of life training planned
minorSome staff had recently received end of life care training, but the home was looking to provide more. Ask how this training is being completed and kept up to date.
“Some staff had recently had training and were looking to have more.” from the report
- 01What refurbishment work was in progress during the inspection, and has it now been completed?
- 02What further end of life care training have staff received since the inspection?
- 03How will you make sure my relative's care plan reflects their preferences and is updated when their needs change?
- 04What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative?
- 05How would you support my relative's preferred way of communicating, including large print, pictures or other formats if needed?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 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.
What inspectors found, May 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some improvements needed in nutrition risk assessments.
The inspection took place on 19 and 20 April 2017. The first day was unannounced. One inspector spoke with seven people living at the home, two relatives and four staff members. They also reviewed six care records, staff records 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 practice, suitable risk assessments, respectful care and support for people's choices and independence.
People received meals, drinks and healthcare support, and were encouraged to take part in activities and maintain relationships. The home had complaint arrangements and regular checks on quality and safety.
The home remained Good, the same rating as at the previous inspection in July 2014. Inspectors noted that new weighing scales were bought after concerns about inaccurate scales, but said the assessments for the risk of malnutrition needed to be more robust.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were stored, administered and recorded correctly during the inspection.
“During our inspection visit staffing levels were observed to be sufficient to meet the needs of people who lived at the home.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff supported people in a calm and caring way. They respected privacy, dignity and people's individual choices.
“We observed staff engaged with people in a caring and relaxed way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. People and relatives were involved in planning and reviewing care.
“There was evidence of people being involved in their own care plan.” from the report
Promoting independence
People were encouraged to do as much as they could for themselves and to keep links with their community, families and friends.
“There was an improvement in efforts to promote people's independence and autonomy.” from the report
Strong monitoring
Managers used audits, meetings and surveys to check quality. The report says issues found through audits were dealt with quickly.
“Any issues found on audits were quickly acted upon and lessons learnt to improve the care the service provided.” from the report
Nutrition risk assessments
needs fixingInspectors said the assessments for malnutrition risk did not clearly explain what staff should do if someone lost a significant amount of weight.
“These needed to be robust to ensure staff knew what actions to take in the event of significant weight loss.” from the report
Inaccurate weighing scales
minorThe weighing scales had been found to be inaccurate. The manager bought new scales immediately, but families may wish to check how weight is monitored now.
“However there were concerns with weighing scales which had been noted to be inaccurate.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that weighing scales are accurate?
- 02What action would staff take if my relative lost a significant amount of weight?
- 03How will you involve my relative and our family in creating and reviewing their care plan?
- 04How do you make sure there are enough staff on each shift to meet individual needs?
- 05How are medicines checked and audited to make sure they are given at the right time?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led; the report says the home remained Good compared with July 2014. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 May 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 Rough Lee Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2014GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.