Rosecroft Residential Home

‘Right support, right care, right culture' is the statutory guidance which supports CQC to make assessments and judgements about services providing support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people. We considered this guidance as there were people using the service who have a learning disability and/or who are autistic.

We assessed the quality statements from the key questions of safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.

We found breaches of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, and good governance. The service did not always ensure the risks in the home environment were identified and acted on. Medicines were not always managed safely. The systems in place to assess and manage the quality and safety of the service were not always effective.

A lack of information or inconsistent information in people’s care plans and risk assessments meant there was a risk people would not experience a seamless transition between different services. Although we observed people being supported to manage their risks safely, these risks were not always recorded effectively in their care plans or risk assessments. However, the service identified and investigated concerns about safety and took action to keep people safe; and safeguarding procedures were followed where required. The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff who worked together well to provide care that met people’s individual needs. The service assessed and managed the risk of infection.

People’s care was delivered in line with national standards or evidence-based good practice guidance. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. People were referred to health and social care partners for specialist support, where required. Systems were in place to monitor people’s care and treatment. However, records were not always completed consistently. People’s assessments did not always include up to date, consistent information about people’s needs. The service did not always ensure the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 had been followed.

Staff treated people with kindness and respected them as individuals. Staff promoted people’s independence and people could take part in a variety of activities. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Staff felt well supported by a dedicated registered manager and the management team who prioritised their wellbeing.

The service worked closely with a range of other agencies including GP practices. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People could access care and treatment when they needed it. Staff and managers expressed a commitment to ensuring people did not face discrimination and had equal opportunities within and outside the home. However, people’s care plans did not always include person centred information about their care preferences, goals and aspirations or end of life preferences.

The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. Staff felt the management team were approachable, inclusive and supportive; and felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The service valued diversity in their workforce. The service shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. The provider’s leadership team worked well together with a focus on delivering good care and improving systems.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.