Archived: Roseview Care Homes - New Southgate

Updated 27 November 2018

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 6 September 2018 and was unannounced.

The inspection was carried out by one inspector 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.

Before the inspection we looked at information we held about the service. This information included notifications that the provider had sent to us to do with incidents that affect the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service.

The provider had not completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR 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 date that the PIR needed to be returned to us was the day after our visit to the service. We discussed the PIR with the senior manager. They told us that they had not been aware that PIR information had been sent to them. They promptly requested an extension of the timescale to complete it, which was granted by us.

During the inspection we observed interactions between staff and people using the service in the communal areas. We also looked around most areas of the building to check environmental safety and cleanliness. This enabled us to determine if people received the care and support they needed in an appropriate environment that was effective in promoting their well-being and independence.

We spoke to the six people who used the service, one visitor and spoke on the phone with four people’s relatives. We also spoke with, the senior manager, the registered manager and two care workers. Following the inspection, we spoke with two community healthcare professionals.

We also reviewed a variety of records which related to people's individual care and the running of the service. These records included care files of five people using the service, four staff records, audits and some policies and procedures.

Updated 27 November 2018

The inspection of Roseview Care Homes –New Southgate took place on 6 September 2018 and was unannounced.

Roseview Care Homes –New Southgate is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Roseview Care Homes –New Southgate provides care and support for up to 14 older people some of whom live with dementia and/or mental health needs. At the time of our inspection 14 people were using the service. People have access to safe outdoor space and the home is located close to shops and public transport.

The service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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.

At our previous inspection on the 9 and 11 June 2015 we rated the service as Good. The provider had met legal requirements. During this inspection we found there were two breaches of the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, and we rated the service overall as Requires Improvement.

People received their prescribed medicines at the right time but we found some shortfalls in the management and administration of people’s medicines.

There were some systems in place for monitoring the quality and safety of the service provided to people, but these were not always sufficiently robust in identifying deficiencies and demonstrating that improvements had been made when needed.

All the people using the service told us that they were satisfied with the service including the care and support that they received from staff. People using the service told us that staff were kind and they felt safe. Staff engaged with people in a respectful manner. They knew the importance of treating people with dignity, protecting people's privacy and respecting their differences and human rights.

Staff knew people well. Staff received a range of training relevant to their roles and responsibilities and received the support that they needed.

Arrangements were in place to protect people from abuse. Risks to people were identified and measures were in place to lessen the risk of people being harmed.

Staff understood their obligations regarding the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). 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's care plans were personalised. They included details about people’s individual needs and preferences and guidance for staff to follow so people received personalised care and support.

People had the opportunity to choose, plan and take part in activities that met their preferences and needs. People’s independence was supported.

Appropriate staff recruitment procedures were in place so that only suitable staff were employed. Staffing levels and skill mix provided people with the assistance and care that they needed.

People knew how to make a complaint and there was a system for recording and responding to complaints.

People were supported to access the healthcare services they needed. Staff liaised closely with healthcare professionals to ensure that people’s health and medical needs were identified and met.

People told us that they enjoyed the meals. Their dietary needs and preferences were accommodated by the service.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.