CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Rockhaven
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, appropriate safeguarding systems, regular risk checks and safe medicines management. They were only somewhat assured about the layout and hygiene of the premises and the use of protective equipment.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. The report nevertheless described staff as kind and caring, with good relationships with the people they supported.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. The report described person-centred care and support for people's choices, independence, family relationships and community links.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear management oversight, regular quality checks, an open culture and staff who felt valued and supported.
What inspectors found, August 2022
St Anne's Community Services - Rockhaven was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and good leadership, but were only somewhat assured about some infection-control practices.
This was an unannounced inspection on 27 and 28 July 2022. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed medicines, care plans, risk assessments, staff records and management records.
The inspection focused on Safe and Well-led. Both areas were rated Good. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems, suitable safeguarding arrangements and good risk checks. People were supported to make choices, stay connected with family and use local services.
The home had an open culture and regular checks on quality. Staff felt supported, and relatives said communication was good. However, inspectors were only somewhat assured about the layout and hygiene of the premises and the safe use of protective equipment.
The overall rating remained Good, as it was at the previous inspection published in May 2018. The other three question ratings were not inspected during this visit and were carried forward from the previous inspection.
Enough skilled staff
There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff understood individual preferences and adapted how they communicated.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff were trained and knowledgeable about people's preferences and how to support them.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, work towards personal goals and use community services. Staff aimed to support people in the least restrictive way.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests” from the report
Kind, person-centred care
Care plans and risk assessments reflected people's individual needs. Inspectors saw kind communication and good relationships between staff and the people supported.
“Staff were kind and caring when interacting with people. Care plans and risk assessments were person centred.” from the report
Open leadership
The manager had a good understanding of people's needs. Senior managers provided oversight, and staff felt able to raise concerns.
“The culture within the service was open and centred on people who used the service.” from the report
Safe medicines systems
Medicines were ordered, stored and disposed of safely. Records and stock were checked, and medicines errors were investigated.
“Medicines were managed safely. Systems were in place to order, store and dispose of medicines.” from the report
Some infection-control practices needed improvement
needs fixingInspectors were not fully assured about the layout and hygiene of the premises or how protective equipment was being used. They signposted the provider to resources to develop this approach.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was promoting safety through the layout and hygiene practices of the premises.” from the report
Use of protective equipment
needs fixingInspectors were only somewhat assured that protective equipment was being used effectively and safely. Families should ask what action was taken after the inspection.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to the layout and hygiene practices of the premises since the inspection?
- 02How do you check that protective equipment is used effectively and safely?
- 03What is the current registration status of the manager who was registering with the CQC at the time of the inspection?
- 04What are the current ratings and inspection findings for Effective, Caring and Responsive care?
- 05How will you support my relative's personal goals, community activities, communication needs and family relationships?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other three question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 August 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, May 2018
St Anne's Community Services - Rockhaven rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind, person-centred care, with some vacancies covered by agency staff.
Inspectors visited on 28 March 2018. The visit was announced 48 hours beforehand. They observed care, spoke with people, staff, relatives and an advocate, and checked care records, medicines, staffing and quality checks.
The home supported up to seven people with complex learning disability and nursing needs. Inspectors found people felt safe and happy, staff treated people with kindness and respect, and people were involved in choices about their care, food and activities.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous inspection had found that staffing was not always sufficient, but inspectors said this had improved after extra afternoon staff were added.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw caring and friendly interactions. People and relatives said staff treated them with dignity and respect.
“We observed good relationships between people and staff. Interaction with people was caring and friendly.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices about their routines, food, clothing, activities and personal spaces, with support kept as least restrictive as possible.
“People chose what they wanted to do to keep themselves active, what to eat, drink and wear.” from the report
Good health support
People could access a range of health professionals and advocacy services. Medicines were stored, administered and audited safely.
“People had access to a good range of health care services and advocacy services actively used for people if they felt health care services were not as responsive as they should be.” from the report
Improved staffing
The home had added staff in the afternoons after the previous inspection. Inspectors found planned staffing levels were being maintained.
“At this inspection we found the provider had made the required improvements by adding additional staff in the afternoons to ensure people's needs were met safely.” from the report
Strong quality checks
The home used audits and reviews to identify shortfalls, set actions and check progress.
“Our review of these records showed there was an effective quality monitoring system to analyse, identify and reduce risk.” from the report
Staff vacancies
minorSome vacancies had not yet been filled, so agency staff were sometimes needed. Inspectors said agreed staffing levels were maintained and agency staff worked with familiar staff.
“However, some staff vacancies were waiting to be filled which meant agency staff were sometimes needed to maintain the agreed levels.” from the report
- 01How many staff vacancies are there now, and how often are agency staff used?
- 02How do you make sure agency staff understand each person's complex needs and communication methods?
- 03How are people's Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations and capacity decisions reviewed?
- 04How do you check that 'as and when required' medicines are given safely and recorded correctly?
- 05How can relatives raise a concern, and can information be provided in an easy-read format?
This was an announced inspection of the overall service, including care, accommodation and all five CQC questions; six people lived there at the visit and three were spoken with. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 May 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 Rockhaven
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leeds
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 £1,250 a week. 89 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.”
“Took his time to learn about me read my care plan and to listen to me. great companionship with lots of laughing.”
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.