CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Rose Road Association
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe. They also reviewed the measures used to manage staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control was safe, although staffing pressures sometimes limited respite places.
This was a targeted inspection on 17 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic. They also asked about staffing pressures.
The inspectors were assured about infection control. This included visitors, testing, personal protective equipment, hygiene, cleaning, admissions, social distancing and outbreak arrangements. The home was following government guidance on visiting and vaccination.
The home had faced difficulties recruiting and keeping staff. It managed this by sometimes limiting the number of respite places it accepted. The inspection did not give a quality rating.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements to prevent and manage infections, including access to testing and effective use of protective equipment.
“We were assured the provider was using personal protective equipment (PPE) effectively and safely.” from the report
Clean environment
The home maintained high standards of hygiene, cleanliness and maintenance despite frequent changes in who used the rooms.
“The provider maintained high standards of hygiene, cleanliness, and maintenance, taking into account frequent changes to room occupancy typical of a respite service.” from the report
COVID-19 management
Senior leaders held regular meetings and used extra checks, audits and walk rounds to manage the pandemic response.
“The provider's response was managed through regular meetings of senior leaders dedicated to COVID-19 issues.” from the report
Individual precautions
The home used individual risk assessments for people who were particularly at risk of infection and needed extra precautions.
“The provider had made use of individual risk assessments to support people safely if they were at particular risk of infection” from the report
Staffing pressures
minorThe home had difficulties recruiting and retaining staff. It sometimes limited the number of respite places it accepted to maintain a safe environment, which may affect availability.
“They had maintained a safe, compliant environment by limiting at times the number of respite places they could accept.” from the report
- 01How many respite places are currently available, given the staffing pressures described in the report?
- 02What staffing levels will be in place during my relative's stay?
- 03How are you managing infection prevention and control now?
- 04What arrangements are in place if my relative or a member of staff develops an infection?
- 05How will visits be managed for my relative and family?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and staffing pressures; it did not rate the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 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, March 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, caring and well-led support, with Outstanding personalised and responsive care.
This was a planned inspection on 11 and 14 January 2019. One inspector visited the office, spoke with people, family carers, managers and staff, and reviewed care records, training, medicines, complaints, incidents and quality checks.
The service supports children and young people up to 25 who may have a physical disability, learning disability or autism. Support is provided in people's homes, in the community and in a six-bed residential respite unit. Inspectors found that people were safe, received effective support, and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
The strongest area was Responsive care, rated Outstanding. Inspectors found highly personalised support, flexible responses to changing needs, strong communication methods and activities that helped people live fuller lives. Safe improved to Good since the previous inspection, while Effective, Caring and Well-led remained Good.
Personalised support
Care and activities were tailored to each person. Inspectors found that this led to exceptional outcomes and helped people take part in experiences they might not otherwise have tried.
“People received individual, tailored care and support which led to exceptional outcomes.” from the report
Flexible responses
The service responded quickly when people's circumstances changed, including arranging emergency respite and maintaining familiar support during hospital recovery.
“The provider responded positively to people's changing needs in emergencies.” from the report
Communication
Staff used a wide range of communication methods, including signs, pictures, objects and eye pointing. These methods were adapted to individual needs.
“The service had taken innovative steps to meet people's information and communication needs.” from the report
Safe care
Inspectors found safeguarding, risk management, recruitment and medicines systems that protected people from avoidable harm.
“People received their medicines as prescribed and in a safe way.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and family carers described staff as caring. Care plans included practical guidance to protect privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Quality improvement
Managers used audits, meetings, feedback and service improvement plans to monitor and improve care.
“There was a strong focus on continuous improvement.” from the report
Consent forms
needs fixingThe standard consent forms used for young adults did not always use suitable language. The provider agreed to review the forms and sent records showing that this work had started.
“This meant the language used on consent records for young adults was not always appropriate.” from the report
Infection control guidance
minorInspectors discussed the available government code of practice on infection prevention and control. The provider took immediate steps to comply with the guidance.
“The provider took immediate steps to make sure they complied with this guidance.” from the report
- 01How have you changed the consent forms for young adults since the inspection?
- 02How will you communicate my relative's individual communication needs to every staff member supporting them?
- 03How are medicines stored, temperature-checked and recorded for my relative?
- 04How would you respond if my relative's needs or family circumstances changed suddenly?
- 05Which staff members are trained and signed off to carry out any specialist healthcare tasks my relative needs?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions and the overall service, including support in people's homes, the community and the residential respite unit; the previous overall rating in 2016 was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 March 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.
Every inspection of The Rose Road Association
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 2010.
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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Southampton
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 £1,350 a week. 39 can care for a couple. 11 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.