Rated Care Homes

Rosehill House

RI

Requires improvement

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 4 ratings

    Its last inspection improved it from Inadequate to Requires improvement.

  • 10 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 16 of 78

    rated care homes in Cumberland are rated Requires improvement, like this one.

Rosehill House: inspection record

Care home, 23 beds, Cumberland

Rated Requires improvement in December 2025, up from Inadequate.

Rosehill House: 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

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Walsingham Support - Moresby Parks (Good, 0.8 miles away) and Bethany House Limited (Good, 1.7 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. G
    Walsingham Support - Moresby Parks Good, 0.8 miles away
  2. RI
    Cumbria Emmaus Trust Requires improvement, 0.9 miles away
  3. RI
    Harbour View Requires improvement, 1.1 miles away
  4. G
    Bethany House Limited Good, 1.7 miles away
  5. RI
    The Gables Requires improvement, 1.9 miles away

See all care homes in Cumberland

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 5 December 2025 (assessment visit 17 September 2025). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Date of Assessment: 14 October 2025 to 24 October 2025. Rosehill House is a care home providing accommodation and personal care for older adults, some of whom may have a physical disability, a sensory impairment or be living with dementia. It is registered to accommodate up to 23 people. At the time of the assessment there were 16 people residing at the home.

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

This service has been in Special Measures since 14 May 2025. The provider demonstrated enough improvements that have been made and is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, this service is no longer in Special Measures. However, the service continued to be in breach of the legal regulation Good Governance.

Although improvements had been made with the service’s governance processes and procedures, further improvements were still required. Improvements still required to be embedded in relation to how the provider learned lessons from incidents, supported people to transition between services, and managed people’s needs and risks. Improvements were required to medicines management and how the provider supported staff through supervision and development. Further improvements were required with how they supported people with consent and how they assessed people’s mental capacity where required. Improvements were required to ensure people could participate in meaningful and person-centred activities, to how the service provided people with information, and how they supported people to feed back on the quality of their care. Although leaders were passionate about delivering good care and were compassionate in how they supported people and their staff, systems in place to promote the culture and values of the service required improvements.

However, the provider now detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment effectively. The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people.

  1. Safe

    No rating

    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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

  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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 service 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 service met people’s needs.

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

    The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance as the systems in place to assess and manage the quality and safety of the service were not always effective.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Safe was rated Requires improvement on 5 December 2025. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
  2. Well-led was rated Requires improvement on 5 December 2025. Ask about changes in management and what has changed since the report.
  3. Ask to see the most recent Care Quality Commission (CQC) report and what the home did about any points in it.

Registration details

Registered manager
Pamela Hill-Eades
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service without nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Older People, Physical Disability, Sensory Impairment

Inspection report

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

4 inspection reports, latest 16 February 2018. Latest assessment published 5 December 2025; 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
Individual

Getting help from Cumberland 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 Rosehill House provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists Rosehill House as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does Rosehill House have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 23 beds at Rosehill House.
When was Rosehill House last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Rosehill House was published on 5 December 2025.
Who runs Rosehill House?
Rosehill House is run by Pamela Dawn Hill-Eades.
What is Rosehill House's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 5 December 2025.

Contact

Phone
01946 695235
Address
Moresby, Whitehaven, CA28 6SF Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Walsingham Support - Moresby Parks (Good, 0.8 miles away) and Bethany House Limited (Good, 1.7 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. G
    Walsingham Support - Moresby Parks Good, 0.8 miles away
  2. RI
    Cumbria Emmaus Trust Requires improvement, 0.9 miles away
  3. RI
    Harbour View Requires improvement, 1.1 miles away
  4. G
    Bethany House Limited Good, 1.7 miles away
  5. RI
    The Gables Requires improvement, 1.9 miles away

See all care homes in Cumberland