Rosegarth Residential

We last inspected this service in April 2019 and rated it good.

We carried out this assessment to confirm that the previous rating of Good remains accurate. Where we found that practice has continued to meet a good standard, we have not reported in detail on these areas and have focused our findings on any areas where improvement was needed or where exceptional practice was found.

Staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice control and freedom over their lives.

People experienced kind, respectful and person‑centred care. Interactions between staff and people were warm and unhurried, and staff knew people well, including their histories, preferences and what mattered to them. One staff member explained, “The best thing? I like coming in and seeing all the people, hearing their stories. It’s nice to see them smile.” Another staff member said, “I like to listen to [people’s] stories. I like hearing about people’s backgrounds.”

People were supported to make day‑to‑day choices about their routines, meals and activities, and staff promoted independence wherever possible. Relatives spoke positively about the caring culture and approachability of staff and leaders. One relative told us the home had “got the balance right” between keeping their family member safe while supporting independence. Staff demonstrated compassion and patience, and people appeared relaxed and comfortable in their surroundings.

Safeguarding concerns were understood and acted on appropriately, and staff worked with partners to ensure people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm while respecting their rights. Risks within the environment were identified and managed, and medicines were safely stored, administered and reviewed in line with people’s needs and preferences. People were supported to give consent, and best‑interest decisions were made where required.

The service was well led, with a shared vision focused on dignity, equality and person‑centred care. The registered manager and senior staff were visible and approachable, and staff felt supported. One staff member told us, “We have good support here, with managers. The door is always open.”

People and relatives told us they felt able to raise concerns and were confident these would be listened to and acted upon. While some improvements were still being embedded in governance and recording practices, the registered manager demonstrated openness, and a commitment to continuous improvement.