Archived: Rosglen Residential Home

Updated 27 November 2015

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.

The inspection took place on 16 September 2015 and was unannounced which meant we did not inform anyone at the service that we would be attending.

The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector and a specialist advisor who was a registered mental health nurse. The specialist advisor had experience of working with, and managing services for, people with learning disabilities and mental health problems.

We did not ask the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR) as part of this inspection. 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. This was because we brought this inspection forward in response to concerns we had been made aware of with the provider.

We contacted the Local Authority who made us aware of requests they had made to the provider in relation to contracts and commissioning arrangements. They were still awaiting a response at the time of our inspection. We also contacted Healthwatch who did not hold any information about Rosglen Residential Home. Heathwatch are the consumer champion for health and social care in England.

During our inspection we used different methods to help us understand the experiences of people living at the service. These methods included informal observations throughout our inspection. Our observations enabled us to see how staff interacted with people and see how care was provided.

We spoke directly with both people who lived at the service. We spoke with the provider, the registered manager and two support workers by telephone. We reviewed the care records of both people and a range of other documentation, including medication records, staff recruitment records and records relating to the management of the home.

Updated 27 November 2015

The inspection took place on 16 September 2015 and was unannounced which meant we did not inform anyone at the service that we would be attending. Rosglen Residential Home was last inspected on 2 April 2014 and was meeting the requirements of the regulations that were inspected at that time.

Rosglen Residential Home is a care home registered to care for people who have a learning disability. The service can accommodate up to six people. At the time of our inspection two people were living at the service.

There was a registered manager in place at the service. 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

Recruitment procedures were not sufficiently robust to ensure new staff were suitable to work at the service. We saw instances where employment references had not been suitably verified as evidence of staff’s previous employment history.

People did not express any concern with their safety. Staff knew how to identify and report abuse and unsafe practice. We saw a situation where the policy around ‘management of service user’s money’ had not been fully followed which did not provide suitable financial safeguards to one person.

Staffing levels were maintained and of a suitable level to meet people’s needs. People and staff told us there were no concerns with the staffing levels in place. We observed good interactions between staff and people who lived at the service although their comments about staff were neutral. Ways of improving the relationship between staff and people had been discussed where one person felt they did not get on with a staff member.

People did not express any concerns with their safety. Individual risk assessments were in place in order to minimise and manage risks to people. However, with some areas of people’s care we saw separate risk assessment tools which gave conflicting levels of risk. Medicines were managed, stored and administered in a safe way.

Staff told us they received training for their roles. Staff said they had regular supervisions and appraisals. They said they felt supported by the registered manager and were also kept updated by way of team meetings. They felt as the service was small, they were kept informed about changes and information relevant to their roles.

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were followed and people were not subject to restrictions. However, it was not fully demonstrated that people did not have capacity to fully manage their own finances where one person had expressed a wish to have access to more of their money at times.

People had support with nutritional needs and to maintain good health and we saw evidence of involvement with various health professionals.

People’s care records were reviewed regularly. They contained detailed information about people’s personalised needs and preferences and how these were to be met. Both people told us they had considered, or were considering moving on from the service. One person felt they would like more independence and wanted to explore living alone.

People were supported to access various activities in the community and to maintain links with the community. One person often went out on their own and travelled across the county.

Feedback was sought by people on an informal basis. People told us they would tell staff if they had any feedback or concerns. There was a complaints procedure in place. There were no complaints at the time of our inspection.

The provider did not undertake any formal monitoring to assess how the service ran and identify areas for improvement in accordance with the service’s statement of purpose which stated this took place. They agreed to implement this going forward. However, we saw that audits were undertaken at management level in a number of areas to identify areas for improvement. Incidents were monitored and overseen by the registered manager to look for trends.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.