Archived: Rose Court Lodge

Updated 28 June 2016

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 17 May 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector, a specialist advisor with experience in nursing care 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.

Prior to our inspection we reviewed information we held about the service. This included previous inspection reports, information received and statutory notifications. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also contacted commissioners (who fund the care for some people) of the service and asked them for their views.

During our inspection we spoke with 14 people who were using the service, eleven visitors, six members of care staff, two activities co-ordinators, the catering manager, three domestic assistants, the registered manager and the provider’s area manager. We also observed the way staff cared for people in the communal areas of the building. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We looked at the care plans of seven people and any associated daily records. We looked at three staff files as well as a range of records relating to the running of the service such as audits and staff training records.

Updated 28 June 2016

This inspection took place on 17 May 2016 and was unannounced. Rose Court Lodge is registered to provide accommodation, personal care and nursing care for up to 110 people, although nursing care was no longer being provided. There are two separate buildings, although one building (The Lodge) was not in use. 43 people were accommodated in Rose Court at the time of our visit. People were supported with a variety of physical health needs as well as dementia related care.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. The registered manager was not present during this inspection.

People told us they felt safe and staff were aware of their responsibility to keep people safe. Risks to people’s safety were appropriately assessed and managed. Staff also supported people to retain as much independence as possible.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to meet people’s needs and people received their medicines as prescribed.

When we last visited the service in November 2015 we found the provider was not meeting the legal requirements in respect of the need for consent. During this inspection we found that sufficient improvements had been made. The Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) was used correctly to protect people who were not able to make their own decisions about the care they received.

Staff were provided with the knowledge, skills and support required to give effective care. People enjoyed the food and were given sufficient quantities of food and drink to maintain good health. People were supported to access healthcare services when required.

There were warm, positive relationships between people and staff. People and their relatives were able to be involved in planning their own care and staff respected any choices people made. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and maintained their right to privacy.

People received person-centred care and information about their care needs was kept up to date. There was a range of activities available within the home as well as external trips to various places of interest. People felt able to make a complaint and the complaints received had been appropriately investigated and responded to.

There was an open and transparent culture in the home and people and staff felt able to speak up. There were different ways for people to provide their feedback about the quality of the service and their comments were taken seriously. A range of audits was carried out to assess the quality of the service being provided.