Rated Care Homes

Rosebank Care Home

G

Good

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 3 ratings

    First rated Requires improvement in 2016, most recently Good in March 2026.

  • 7 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 87 of 107

    rated care homes in Sheffield are rated Good, like this one.

Rosebank Care Home: inspection record

Care home, 25 beds, Sheffield

Rated Good in March 2026.

Rosebank Care Home: inspection record: inspection ratings by year, 2015 to 2026
201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026
Overall
Safe
Effective
Caring
Responsive
Well-led

Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.

Compare nearby

  1. G
    Pexton Grange Good, 0.3 miles away
  2. G
    Abbeyfield Grange Ltd Good, 0.4 miles away
  3. G
    St Catherines Nursing Home Good, 0.4 miles away
  4. RI
    Neu Living Requires improvement, 0.4 miles away
  5. RI
    Wood Hill Grange Requires improvement, 0.4 miles away

See all care homes in Sheffield

See all care homes in Central Sheffield

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 4 March 2026 (assessment visit 11 December 2025). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Date of Assessment: 5 January 2026 – 4 February 2026. Rosebank is a care home providing accommodation and care to older people, some of whom were living with dementia. At the time of this inspection there were 23 people living at the service. This assessment was carried out due to the length of time since the last rated inspection. We carried out a comprehensive assessment of the service covering all 5 key questions. At the last inspection in 2020 the service was rated good. At this assessment we rated the service good in safe, effective, caring and responsive and requires improvement in well led with an overall rating of good.

  • Safe Good
  • Effective Good
  • Caring Good
  • Responsive Good
  • Well-led No rating
Read the rest of CQC's summary

Risks to people were assessed but they were not always fully mitigated. Some care plans needed more detail and some information needed to be clearer and more accurate. We also found records of care given were not consistently completed, which meant we could not be assured that people were receiving care in line with their assessed needs. Whilst we found no harm to people, further work was needed to ensure risks were fully mitigated and managers had accurate oversight of care provided.

Whilst we found no concerns with staffing levels, completion rates for mandatory training were lower than expected and staff were not always receiving regular supervision or appraisals. A plan was in place to rectify this.

People received their medicines as prescribed. However, improved guidance for staff and recording of action taken was needed where people were regularly asleep at the time of administration or regularly refused their medicines. Effectiveness of ‘as required’ medicines (PRN) was also not being routinely recorded or risks assessed for some people using emollients. These concerns were actioned immediately. Staff who administered medicines had received training and had their competence checked.

The service was clean and well maintained, with regular checks of the environment to ensure it was safe. Some flooring was in need of replacement and plans were already in place to address this.

Managers and staff worked with other professionals and agencies involved in people’s care to promote good outcomes for people.

The provider had processes to safeguard people from the risk of abuse. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and knew how to act on concerns.

People were treated with kindness and compassion, and staff protected their privacy and dignity.

Governance systems were in place and there were a range of audits and checks to support safety and quality. The registered manager who had not long taken over responsibility for the service was aware of most of the shortfalls we identified and was already taking action to address them. However, this work was still ongoing and required further embedding into practice to ensure people were safe and experienced good outcomes. We have reflected this in our rating of well-led. The registered manager and senior team were open and transparent with us throughout our assessment and demonstrated a strong commitment to driving improvements at the service.

  1. Safe

    Good

    Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

    This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

  2. Effective

    Good

    Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

    This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

  3. Caring

    Good

    Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

    This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

  4. Responsive

    Good

    Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

    This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

  5. Well-led

    No rating

    Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

    This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Well-led was rated Requires improvement on 4 March 2026. Ask about changes in management and what has changed since the report.
  2. Ask to see the most recent Care Quality Commission (CQC) report and what the home did about any points in it.
  3. Visit at different times of day, including a mealtime.

Registration details

Registered manager
Natasha Sumner
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service without nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Mental Health, Older People

Inspection report

Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

6 inspection reports, latest 18 February 2021. Latest assessment published 4 March 2026; the Care Quality Commission's newer assessments are published on its website rather than as reports.

The rating is the Care Quality Commission's. We show it as published and do not change it.

Who runs it

Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
03475391 (opens Companies House)

Silver Healthcare Limited runs 2 services, all in Yorkshire and the Humber. 1 is rated Good or Outstanding and 1 is rated Requires improvement or Inadequate.

Other services run by Silver Healthcare Limited

  1. RI
    Leahyrst Care Home Requires improvement. Care home, Sheffield

Getting help from Sheffield City Council

The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.

Checked on the council's website, November 2026.

Common questions

Does Rosebank Care Home provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists Rosebank Care Home as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does Rosebank Care Home have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 25 beds at Rosebank Care Home.
When was Rosebank Care Home last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Rosebank Care Home was published on 4 March 2026.
Who runs Rosebank Care Home?
Rosebank Care Home is run by Silver Healthcare Limited. It runs 2 services, all in Yorkshire and the Humber.
What is Rosebank Care Home's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Good, published on 4 March 2026.

Contact

Address
48 Lyons Road, Sheffield, S4 7EL Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

  1. G
    Pexton Grange Good, 0.3 miles away
  2. G
    Abbeyfield Grange Ltd Good, 0.4 miles away
  3. G
    St Catherines Nursing Home Good, 0.4 miles away
  4. RI
    Neu Living Requires improvement, 0.4 miles away
  5. RI
    Wood Hill Grange Requires improvement, 0.4 miles away

See all care homes in Sheffield

See all care homes in Central Sheffield