Rosclare Residential Home Limited

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 1 August 2024 (assessment visit 16 May 2024). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

1. Safe

   GGood Good

   Staff adhered to their responsibilities to safeguard people from avoidable harm and to report any concerns observed. People received their medicines as prescribed and there were safe medicines management processes in place. This included improvements to processes for the administration of ‘when required’ medicines. Infection prevention and control processes were adhered to and people were cared for in a clean and hygienic environment. Staff supported people to manage risks to their safety. However, we found that staff’s knowledge around risk management was not always appropriately captured in people’s care records. A safe environment was provided but required some adaptations to assist those living with dementia to navigate around the service. Staffing levels were established in line with people’s dependency needs. Staff felt there was good team working and sufficient staff to enable them to undertake their duties. However, some people felt at times staff were not easily accessible and they felt they were restricted to certain parts of the building so staff could more easily supervise them. Staff received a regular programme of training and were supported through supervision and appraisal processes. The registered manager took action to address the areas identified above following our feedback.

2. Effective

   GGood Good

   People’s needs were regularly reviewed to ensure they received appropriate care according to their need. Care and support was delivered in line with best practice guidance in order to achieve best possible outcomes for people. Staff worked with other health and social care providers to ensure people received coordinated and consistent care. Staff liaised with healthcare professionals to ensure people’s health needs were met and their wellbeing maintained. People’s capacity to consent to care was regularly assessed and staff followed best interest decisions where they felt people did not have the capacity to consent to elements of their care. This was done in liaison with people’s relatives and relevant health and social care professionals. However, we found that information about how these decisions were made were not always suitably recorded in people’s care records. The registered manager told us they would ensure that all information discussed during these reviews were documented in order to maintain clear documentation on decision making.

3. Caring

   GGood Good

   People felt respected by the staff that cared for them, however, some support was not provided in a way that maintained people’s dignity and left people feeling ‘embarrassed’. Additional training was going to be provided to staff to address this concern. Whilst improvements had been made to the activity provision at the home, people still felt there was not enough engagement and stimulation, with relatives telling us that people often looked “bored”. The management team told us they would consult with people and relatives about what activities they would like so they had greater choice and control over how they spent their time.

   People were encouraged and supported to build on their independence and undertake as much as they could for themselves. People were also supported to gain strength and coordination to improve their mobility, so they could do more for themselves.

4. Responsive

   GGood Good

   People received equity in experience. Staff were receptive to people’s individual needs and tailored the support provided taking account of people’s protected characteristics as outlined by the Equality Act 2010. People were happy being supported by the staff at the service and noted their kindness and patience. Staff adjusted their communication styles to ensure people were understood and listened to.

5. Well-led

   GGood Good

   A new registered manager was in post who provided clear leadership and oversight at the service. There was a clear management structure in place and staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities. Staff felt their wellbeing was supported by the registered manager. They felt comfortable approaching the registered manager and felt able to speak up if they needed to. Governance systems had been improved to ensure there was regular review of the quality and safety of care provision. There had been a number of improvements made since the last assessment and there was a commitment within the staff team to continue to learn and improve practice. However, we found there were some areas of service delivery that continued to require improvement, notably the level of detail captured within people’s care records and activities provision. The registered manager took on board this feedback and would make the necessary improvements to address the shortfall.