Rose Lodge

Updated 28 January 2021

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 12 January 2021 and was unannounced.

Updated 28 January 2021

Rose Lodge is a residential care home for older people. It is registered to accommodate up to 57 people who require nursing and/or personal care. At the time of the inspection, 51 people were living there.

At our last inspection in May 2016 we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the home. 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 home is run.

People were kept safe and staff were knowledgeable about reporting any incidents of harm. Risk assessments were in place and reviewed regularly to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. People’s care records were held securely and these records were reviewed and any changes to people’s care and support needs had been recorded.

Staff wore protective clothing such as gloves and aprons when needed. This reduced the risk of cross infection. We found supplies were available for staff to use when required.

People were helped to take their medicines by staff who were trained and had been assessed to be competent to administer medicines.

People were looked after by enough staff, who were trained and supervised to support them with their individual needs. Pre-employment checks were completed on new staff before they were assessed to be suitable to look after people who used the service.

Staff were able to demonstrate their understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS); these provide legal safeguards for people who may be unable to make their own decisions. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs had been met. Care records seen confirmed visits to and from General Practitioners (GP's) and other healthcare professionals had been recorded.

People continue to be offered choices and were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts of food and drink.

Staff knew the people they supported and provided support in a caring way. Care plans gave staff information on how to support people with their care needs.

People participated in a range of activities within and outside the service and received the support they needed to help them to do this.

People were involved in the running of the service. Regular meetings were held for the people and their relatives so that they could discuss any issues or make recommendations for improvements on how the service was run.

People’s concerns and complaints continued to be listened to and were acted upon.

Quality monitoring procedures were in place and action was taken where improvements were identified. There were clear management arrangements in place. Staff, people and their relatives were able to make suggestions and actions were taken as a result.

Further information is in the detailed findings below