Rose House

Updated 10 October 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 02 August 2017 and was unannounced.

This was a comprehensive inspection. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete 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. The provider did not return the PIR as requested. We looked at previous inspection reports and notifications about important events that had taken place in the service, which the provider is required to tell us by law. We used this information to help us plan our inspection

We spoke with four people who used the service and three relatives to gain their feedback of the service. We also spoke with five staff including the manager and the provider’s operations manager. We received feedback about the service from two independent advocates and two care managers.

We looked at the provider’s records. We looked at four people’s care records, which included care plans, health records, risk assessments and daily care records. We also looked at medicines administration records. We looked at four staff files, a sample of audits, satisfaction surveys, staff rotas, and policies and procedures.

We asked the manager to send us information by email after the inspection. These documents were sent through in a timely manner.

Updated 10 October 2017

This inspection was carried out on 02 August 2017. The inspection was unannounced.

Rose House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 18 people with a learning disability. There were 15 people living at the service on the day of our inspection who were of younger and older age groups. People had varying levels of care and support needs; some required staff support with their personal care needs and others required encouragement and prompts. The accommodation was spread over two floors with a lift to help people move between the floors easily.

At the last inspection, on 25 August 2015, the service was rated as Good. At this inspection we found the service had remained Good.

Staff spoke positively about the support they received from the manager and from the provider organisation. Although a manager was employed by the provider, they were not registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The manager made the application during the inspection and this was now progressing. The provider had not returned a provider information return, requested by CQC prior to the inspection.

Risks were assessed and there were measures in place to minimise the risk to help keep people safe. Medicines continued to be administered by trained staff and administration processes were managed well.

People had the support they needed to access the appropriate help and advice to maintain their health and well-being. People said they were happy with the food and snacks available to them. People were involved in choosing the menus for the week.

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 support this practice.

Care plans were person centred and included people’s life history and their personal preferences.

People were supported to get involved in a range of activities to suit their needs and abilities both inside and outside of the service.

People were comfortable in the company of staff, chatting and laughing together. Staff knew people well and supported them to gain greater independence. People had their own bedroom and could choose freely to spend time with others in the communal areas or on their own in their bedroom.

There were staff vacancies that the manager was in the process of recruiting to, however, staff worked extra hours at times to make sure people received the support they needed. The provider had robust recruitment processes in place to make sure only suitable staff were employed to work in the service.

Staff one to one supervision meetings had not been carried out as regularly as the provider’s policy stated they should. However, the manager had a plan in place with dates booked for the rest of the year. Training continued to be provided to enable staff to gain the knowledge required to support people on a day to day basis.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.