Rosecroft Residential Home

Updated 28 November 2020

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control practice was safe and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 4 November 2020 and was unannounced. However, we called from the car park so we could comply with the home’s visiting policy, and to check which room could be used for our visit.

Updated 28 November 2020

This inspection took place on 21 August 2017 and was unannounced. It was carried out by two adult social care inspectors and an expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Rosecroft is a residential care home that provides care and accommodation for up to 51 people. The home is a purpose built property that has been updated and improved on by the provider. It is situated in a residential area of Workington near to local amenities and with good access to public transport. Accommodation is in single rooms. The home has suitable outdoor areas for people to enjoy. The home has a specially designated area for people living with dementia. This area is secure to ensure people can be as safe as possible.

The home had a suitably qualified and experienced registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We judged that the staff team understood the safeguarding of vulnerable adults. They knew how to protect people from harm and abuse. The team had received suitable training and were able to talk to senior staff about any concerns.

Staff were recruited appropriately with checks and references taken up prior to the new staff member having contact with vulnerable people. The home was suitably staffed and rostering ensured that staff were available to meet people's needs.

Medication was being managed correctly with suitable systems in place for ordering, storage and administration. Staff received training on the use of medicines.

Staff development was high on the agenda of the registered manager and the home's trainer. Staff displayed good levels of skills and knowledge. Supervision, training and appraisal were up to date.

Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were asked about consent. Where people found this difficult a 'best interest' meeting was held to ensure the person had help with decision making. Where staff had judged a person to be deprived of their liberty suitable authority was sought so that the team followed the legislation.

People in the home were very complimentary about food on offer. People were helped to get suitable food and fluids. Where there were problems the staff called on health care professionals and included guidance in care plans.

The staff team called on health care professionals appropriately. We met nurses and a GP who were satisfied with the health care support given to people.

The home was clean, orderly and well maintained. We noted that all areas were well decorated and suitably furnished. The provider had made improvements to the property over the years.

We observed staff interactions with people in the home. We judged the team to be very caring. We saw polite and patient interactions. People were treated with respect and given suitable levels of support to ensure dignity was maintained. The team could access support from advocates if necessary. The staff helped people to stay as independent as possible.

Health professionals told us the team worked well with them to ensure end of life care was done appropriately. We had evidence to show that the team helped people, and their families at this time.

Care planning was up to date and most of the care plans gave suitable guidance for staff to give people good levels of care and support.

We made a recommendation which would enhance care planning. We recommended that nutritional planning would benefit from more detail and that, for some people, contingency planning would be of benefit.

Activities and entertainments were varied and regular. People were looking forward to a short break holiday.

There were no complaints or concerns when we visited. People told us they understood how to make a complaint and the provider had a suitable complaints procedure.

The provider had a quality monitoring system and we saw that improvements had been made because this system had alerted the registered manager and the provider when people wanted change or where systems were unsuitable.

Records were of a good standard and were stored appropriately.