Archived: Rosemount Care Home

We found the following examples of good practice.

The provider had arrangements for booking visitors at the home which included any visitor taking an LFT test, having their temperature checked and wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) when entering the care home. Visitors were able to book time slots to visit safely with their family member.

The service supported people and their relatives and essential care givers to understand the isolation processes and how the service could help to alleviate them feeling lonely during an outbreak of COVID-19. This included calls with friends and loved ones and dedicated support time from plentiful staff members in different rooms for activities.

Specific staff were allocated to support all people's needs, and staff were consistently working in the same area of the home to avoid cross contamination. During an outbreak, people were supported by staff to isolate in their own rooms and areas near their rooms as much as possible.

PPE was well stocked and organised, and cleaning products were stored and used appropriately. The home was clean.

Staff and people living at the home were partaking in regular testing. Staff and people living at the home had been vaccinated.

Rosemount Care Home is a residential home providing personal care for up to 15 people. At the time of our inspection, 15 people were being supported. The home is a converted Victorian house in the Edgeley district of Stockport.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People told us they felt safe in the home. Checks were in place to ensure the home remained a safe environment. Staff were aware of the importance of raising any concerns they had about people being at risk of abuse. People received their medicines as they had been prescribed.

People’s needs were assessed, and their choices and cultural needs were respected. Staff were well trained and supported. Food was freshly prepared on-site and people told us the food was good. Some areas of the home needed refurbishment.

Staff and people living in the home had built a close rapport. People spoke fondly of the staff and described the home as a fun place to be. People were supported in ways that protected their privacy and dignity and were encouraged to be as independent as possible.

People’s choices were respected, and we saw people being supported in the way they chose. A variety of activities were organised which people enjoyed and spontaneous activities like trips out for lunch were also common. The registered manager welcomed feedback from people to help improve the service.

The registered manager had implemented robust quality processes since the last inspection giving them good oversight of quality within the home. The culture of the home was open and friendly which allowed people and staff to speak up and be involved in developing the service. The registered manager had built good relationships with the local authority and worked closely with them to help improve the service.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 30 August 2018) where a breach of regulations was identified. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Rosemount care home is situated in the suburb of Edgeley, Stockport. The accommodation is provided over two floors with access by stairs or a stair lift. There is a communal lounge downstairs with a smaller lounge area off the main lounge. There are secure accessible gardens. There had been significant improvements made to the home environment, including new flooring and improvements to the garden. There was a programme of works being followed to further improve the environment.

Rosemount is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is registered to provide personal care and accommodation to a maximum of 15 people. At the time of this inspection there were 12 people living in the home.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

At our last inspection in May 2017, Rosemount was rated as 'Requires Improvement' with some breaches of the regulations identified. At this inspection, we found there had been improvements in some areas but found some continuing and additional concerns.

Medicines were stored safely but some records relating to 'when required' medicines were missing or provided contradictory information. This meant we could not be confident people had received their medicines as prescribed.

Safeguarding concerns the home had reported had been recorded properly but not all safeguarding incidents had been recognised and reported.

People's needs had been holistically assessed prior to admission to ensure the home was able to meet their needs. People and their families had been involved in this process.

Staff had received training to ensure they were able to support people properly. People living in the home were confident staff knew what they were doing and could help them in the right ways.

The staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the importance of gaining consent before providing care and support. People told us staff always asked them before doing anything. We saw staff regularly asking people if they wanted help or a drink.

People living in the home and their relatives praised the caring and polite attitude of the staff.

Staff ensured they supported people to communicate, following the guidelines in their care plans and the knowledge they had built up over time. This ensured people were supported to be involved and make choices.

People were supported to keep in touch with people who were important to them. Visitors were encouraged and welcomed. Some relatives described the home as being like a home from home.

People received person centred care that was responsive to their needs.

People's needs were reviewed regularly and they were referred to other professionals such as the doctor or dietician when needed. People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing and to attend appointments.

People told us there were plenty of activities if they wanted to do anything. The home organised social activities and events including coffee mornings and visits from nurseries.

Auditing systems had not identified the issues we found during this inspection. Not all notifications had been submitted to CQC. The registered manager had not understood fully which incidents needed to be reported. We have discussed this in more detail in the Well Led section of this report.

People living in the home and their relatives felt confident in the management team. Staff working in the home felt there had been a lot of improvements since the last inspection.

At the last inspection on 16, 17 and 18 January 2017 we rated the service as requires improvements. At that inspection we identified one regulatory breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014, which related to good governance.

Following the inspection the provider sent us an action plan detailing how the identified breach would be addressed. This inspection was to check improvements found at the last inspection had been sustained, to see if any further improvements had been made and to review the ratings.

Rosemount Care Home is a residential care home based in Edgeley, Stockport. The accommodation is arranged over two floors accessed via the stairs or a stair lift.

The communal areas include an open plan lounge and a smaller quiet area. There is a garden to the rear of the property, which at the time of this inspection was not fully enclosed. Limited off road car parking is available at the front of the property. No en-suite facilities are available.

Rosemount Care Home is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to 17 older people some of whom may also have a diagnosis of dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 13 people living in the home.

Since the last inspection in January 2017 the manager had registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and was present throughout the three days of inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with 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 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

During this inspection, we found the majority of improvements that had been had been made at the last inspection had been maintained and further improvements had also been made. However we did identify two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The registered manager was responsive to our feedback and was committed to further improving the service delivered to people living at Rosemount Care Home.

At the last inspection we saw the service had improved the recruitment processes to ensure only suitable staff were employed and staff were receiving on-going supervision and an annual appraisal. However during this inspection we saw that a temporary member of non- care staff had been working at the home without going through a recruitment process. This meant that appropriate safety checks had not been undertaken to protect people who used the service from receiving unsafe and inappropriate care. Once this was discussed with the registered manager they immediately stopped this person from working at the home.

We observed people receiving person-centred care but we found that there continued to be some shortfalls in the written plans of care. This was because some parts of the plans of care were vague and did not include details of exactly what assistance the person required to meet their assessed care needs.

We observed staff giving kind and caring support to people. We saw that people’s privacy and dignity was respected and people were relaxed in the company of staff.

There were systems put in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service delivered. However during this inspection we found shortfalls in the lack of recruitment for a temporary member of non-care staff, missing staff signatures on medication storage records and medicine administration sheets for the application of topical creams and ointment and some care records did not provide a contemporaneous record of care required and delivered to people, although staff were aware of individuals needs and people confirmed their care needs were met.

From looking at the training records and speaking with staff, we found training was being undertaken to ensure staff were properly trained and future training had been planned.

Staff spoken with understood the need to obtain verbal consent from people using the service before a task or care was undertaken and staff were seen to obtain consent prior to providing care or support.

Although some internal areas of the home were tired and dated in appearance, the home was clean and we saw staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) to help reduce the risk of cross infection to people. We saw that the home had won an award from the local authority Health Protection Unit for the ‘Most Improved for Infection Control’ following an infection control assessment undertaken by a Health Protection Nurse.

Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse which helped make sure people were protected. People living at Rosemount, visiting relatives and staff spoken with all said they thought safe care and treatment was provided by staff at the home.

People had access to healthcare services and we saw specialist advice was sought in a timely manner, for example from the district nurse, dentist, optician and chiropodist. People were supported to attend hospital appointments as required.

Attention was paid to people’s diet and people were supported to eat and drink in a way that met their needs. People living at Rosemount were complimentary about the food provided and said there was plenty of it.

People were supported by a caring and stable staff team. We saw that since the last inspection the number of staff employed on the evening shift had increased from two staff to three staff.

There was a system in place for receiving, handling and responding to concerns and complaints. The people living at Rosemount who we asked and all of the visiting relatives we spoke with told us they had never raised a complaint but thought the registered manager would be responsive if they did.

At the last inspection we saw improvements had been made to the systems used to monitor the quality and safety of the service. For example reviews of accidents and incidents had been carried out, along with reviews of staff recruitment files, staff training, plans of care and general cleanliness and infection control within the home. However, these had not been effective at identifying the issues we found during this inspection.

At the last inspection on 18, 19, 20 and 21 July 2016 we rated the service as ‘Inadequate' which meant the service was placed in ‘special measures.’ At that inspection we identified multiple regulatory breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014, which related to medication administration, fit and proper person’s employed, safe care and treatment, staffing, person-centred care and good governance.

Following the inspection the provider sent us an action plan detailing how the identified breaches would be addressed and a monthly update on the implementation of the action plan. This inspection was to check improvements had been made and to review the ratings.

Rosemount Care Home is a residential care home based in Edgeley, Stockport. The accommodation is arranged over two floors accessed via the stairs or a stair lift.

The communal areas include an open plan lounge and dining area. There is a garden to the rear of the property, which is not enclosed and offers limited off road car parking. No en-suite facilities are available.

Rosemount Care Home is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to 17 older people some of whom may also have a diagnosis of dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 12 people living in the home.

There was no registered manager at the time of the inspection; however there was a manager in post who was in the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). Confirmation was received following this inspection that the manager was registered with CQC on 31 January 2017. 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.

During this inspection, we found significant improvements had been made; the manager was responsive to our feedback and was committed to further improving the service delivered to people living at Rosemount Care Home.

We observed staff giving kind and caring support to people. We saw that people’s privacy and dignity was respected and people were relaxed in the company of staff.

Medicines were managed safely and people were receiving their medicines in line with the prescriber’s instructions.

From looking at the training record and speaking with staff, we found improvements had been made to ensure staff were properly trained and future training had been planned.

Staff spoken with understood the need to obtain verbal consent from people using the service before a task or care was undertaken and staff were seen to obtain consent prior to providing care or support.

Although some areas of the home were tired and dated in appearance, the home was clean and we saw staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) to help reduce the risk of cross infection.

Since the previous inspection the service had improved the recruitment processes to ensure only suitable staff were employed and staff were now receiving on-going supervision and dates for annual appraisals had been arranged.

Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse which helped make sure people were protected. People living at Rosemount, the visiting relatives and two healthcare professionals spoken with all said they thought safe care and treatment was provided.

People had access to healthcare services and we saw specialist advice was sought in a timely manner, for example from the district nurse, dentist, optician and chiropodist. People were supported to attend hospital appointments as required.

Attention was paid to people’s diet and people were supported to eat and drink in a way that met their needs. People living at Rosemount were complimentary about the food provided and there was plenty of it.

People were supported by a caring staff team. However, we found there was not a systematic approach to determine the number of staff and range of skills required to meet the needs of the people who used the service. This meant the registered provider could not be sure that the staffing levels and skill mix of staff were sufficient to meet the assessed needs of people living at Rosemount Care Home. We made a recommendation that they implement the use of a staffing tool.

A notice informing people how to make a complaint was displayed in the main entrance of the home and information was also displayed on the back of people’s bedroom doors. Details of how to make a complaint were also detailed in the home’s statement of purpose and service user guide. There was a system in place for receiving, handling and responding to concerns and complaints. The people living at Rosemount who we asked and all of the visiting relatives we spoke with told us they had never raised a complaint but thought the manager would be responsive if they did.

Since the previous inspection improvements had been made to the systems used to monitor the quality and safety of the service. For example reviews of accidents and incidents had been carried out, along with reviews of staff recruitment files, staff training and general cleanliness and infection control within the home. There was a monthly audit of all aspects of medication administration and regular staff and resident/relatives meetings had been implemented.

The two visiting healthcare professionals we spoke with told us they had no concerns for the people living at Rosemount Care Home and they said that they could see improvements since the new manager had taken up post.

During the inspection in March 2016, we found continued breaches of the regulations and one further breach of the regulations. The service was rated inadequate overall, which meant it was placed into 'Special measures.' This inspection found that there was not enough improvement to take the provider out of special measures. CQC is now considering the appropriate regulatory response to resolve the problems found.

Rosemount Care Home is a residential care home based in Edgeley, Stockport. The accommodation is arranged over two floors accessed via stairs or a chair stair lift.

The communal areas include an open plan lounge and dining area. There is a garden to the rear of the property, which is not enclosed and limited off road car parking. No en-suite facilities are available.

Rosemount Care Home is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to 17 older people some of whom may also have a diagnosis of dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 10 people living in the home.

At the time of this inspection the service did not have a registered manager in place. The home had been without a registered manager since November 2014. 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. At the time of this inspection a manager had been in post since 4 June 2016.

During this inspection we identified eight breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 seven of which were continued breaches of the regulations and one new breach was found.

Full information about CQC's regulatory response to any concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

Medicines continued to be managed unsafely. We found there were gaps in the recording of prescribed creams and there was not a corresponding plan of care for the use of the prescribed creams. This meant there was a risk that creams had not been applied when required, which could have resulted in unnecessary discomfort to the person.

We continued to have concerns in relation to staff supervision and appraisals, because not all staff had received regular, formal one to one supervision with their manager and none of the care staff had received an annual appraisal. This meant that staff were not being appropriately guided and supported to fulfil their job role effectively.

From looking at the staff training matrix (record) we found there were gaps in staff training. This meant some staff may not be appropriately trained and skilled to meet the needs of the people living at the home.

We found there were still concerns regarding the safe recruitment of staff and ensuring suitable staff were employed because the shortfalls found at the last inspection had not been addressed.

We found that accurate and complete records were not kept in relation to the care and treatment of some people who used the service.

We found risk assessments were not always in place to help manage and reduce the risks to people's health, safety and welfare.

Although some improvements were found for example an audit had been undertaken of people’s care files and medication administration we found that robust systems had not been implemented to monitor the quality of service people received.

We saw and staff told us there were enough members of staff to keep people safe. However we recommended that the provider implements the use of a staffing tool to determine the number of staff and range of skills required in order to meets the needs of people using the service and keep them safe at all times.

We recommended that the exposed clinical waste bins directly outside the door entrance to the garden should be stored in an enclosed area. In addition the fridge/freezer should be removed from the outside door entrance to the garden.

We recommended that the registered provider considered making the garden area a safe, enclosed, usable space for people living at the home to access and use in good weather.

We recommend that in order to preserve the dignity of people food is not served on plastic plates, plastic dishes or plastic beakers unless there is an identified need for this.

Staff we spoke with were able to tell us how they would respond if they had any concerns about the safety of people living at Rosemount Care Home.

Visitors we spoke to whose relatives used the service told us they thought Rosemount Care Home was a safe and caring place to live and they thought people were well looked after.

Relatives spoken with told us they had never made a complaint and were happy with the care provided.

We saw that activities were provided by the staff on duty such as a game of dominos and a game of play your cards right.

We saw staff had good relationships with the people they were caring for.

We last inspected Rosemount Care Home on 14 September 2015, when we under took a comprehensive inspection, including looking to see if the provider had met the requirement actions made at the previous inspection in April 2015. During the inspection on 14 September 2015, we found further breaches of the regulations in relation to some parts of the building and premise not being safe, appropriate risk assessments not being undertaken, unsafe management of medicines, there were concerns around poor infection control, obtaining consent from people who use the service and a lack of meaningful activities for people. We also found unsafe recruitment processes, staff employed had not received any formal induction when commencing employment, staff were not receiving supervision or appraisals and there were gaps in staff training. Following this inspection we issued ten requirement notices, which the provider had to send us a report detailing what action they were going to take, and made five recommendations. The service was rated inadequate overall, which meant it was placed into ‘Special measures.’ During this inspection we found limited improvements had been made.

Rosemount Care Home is a care home based in Edgeley, Stockport. The accommodation is arranged over two floors accessed via stairs or a chair stair lift. The communal areas include an open plan lounge and a smaller quiet lounge, both lead into the dining room. There is a garden and patio area to the rear of the property and off road car parking. No en-suite facilities are available.

Rosemount Care Home is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to 17 older people some of whom may also have a diagnosis of dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 10 people living in the home.

The service did not have a registered manager in place. The home had been without a registered manager since November 2014. 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.

At the time of this inspection the provider had purchased the services of a consultant, who had taken up the role of “acting deputy manager,” commencing 15 February 2016.

During this inspection we identified nine breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Eight of which were continued breaches of the regulations and one new breach.

Full information about CQC's regulatory response to any concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

Medicines continued to be managed unsafely although we did see some improvements from the last inspection. We were told one person was currently self-administrating some of their medication. A risk assessment had not been undertaken to ensure the person was safely able to self-administer their own medication in accordance with their own medication policy.

We continued to have concerns in relation to staff supervision and appraisals, because as identified at the last inspection not all staff had received regular, formal one to one supervision and none of the care staff had received an annual appraisal, which meant that staff were not being appropriately guided and supported to fulfil their job role effectively.

From looking at the training matrix (record) and speaking with staff we found there were gaps in staff training. This meant some staff may not be appropriately trained and skilled to meet the needs of the people living at the home.

We saw some evidence that staff had completed induction training. However the homes induction was not robust enough. In one staff file there was no evidence of any induction training and in a further three staff files looked at the induction training dates recorded were before the staff members had commenced employment.

We found there were still concerns regarding the safe recruitment of staff and ensuring suitable staff were employed.

Consent to care had not been appropriately obtained from some people using the service.

We recommend that in order to preserve the dignity of people food is not served in plastic dishes and beakers unless there is an identified need for this.

We found that accurate and complete records were not kept in relation to the care and treatment of some people who used the service.

We found risk assessments were not always in place to help manage and reduce the risks to people’s health, safety and welfare.

We saw there were no cleaning schedules in place to demonstrate what cleaning had been undertaken in the communal areas of the home including bathrooms and WC’s.

As identified at the last inspection robust systems were not in place to monitor the quality of service people received.

We saw some improvements to the environment for example new carpets and redecoration to the communal lounges and dining room.

We saw and staff told us there were enough members of staff to keep people safe.

Staff we spoke with were able to tell us how they would respond if they had any concerns about the safety of people living at Rosemount care home.

Visitors we spoke to whose relatives used the service told us they thought Rosemount was a safe and caring place to live and they thought people were happy and well looked after.

Relatives spoken with told us they had never made a complaint but told us that they thought any issues raised would be dealt with to their satisfaction.

We saw that activities were provided by the staff on duty which people enjoyed. However we recommended that individual assessments of people’s hobbies and interests were undertaken and recorded to ensure that the activities provided were in accordance with people’s personal preferences.

We saw staff had good relationships with the people they were caring for.

The overall rating for this provider is ‘Inadequate’. This means that it has been placed into ‘Special measures’ by CQC. The purpose of special measures is to:

• Ensure that providers found to be providing inadequate care significantly improve.

• Provide a framework within which we use of enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and work with, or signpost to, other organisations in the system to ensure improvements are made.

• Provide a clear timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of care they provide or we will seek to take further action, for example cancel their registration.

Services placed in special measures will be inspected again within six months. If insufficient improvements have been made such that there remains a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve.

The service will be kept under review and if needed could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement we will move to close the service by adopting our proposal to vary the provider’s registration to remove this location or cancel the provider’s registration.

The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

Is the service safe?

During this inspection visit we observed that people were treated with respect and dignity by the staff and people told us they felt safe living in Rosemount Care Home.

Each person had an individual care file that included risk assessments and a care plan that described how to meet individual care needs.

During our visit to Rosemount Care Home we found a number of concerns around the staffing of the home. We found that only one member of care staff was on duty during the night to support the 12 people currently using the service and 14 people when the home was full. We were told that there was an on call system in operation but it was rarely used. The last time anybody was called using the on call system was in May 2014 when somebody fell and needed to go to A&E for treatment. The manager confirmed that a number of people required the assistance of two care staff to ensure safety with moving and handling. We discussed our concerns with the manager and the provider of the service at the time of our visit.

During this inspection visit we saw shortfalls in the standards of cleanliness and hygiene in the home.

Improvements were needed to the way in which medication was recorded to ensure that people received their medication as prescribed by their GP.

Staff training records indicated that the majority of staff were not up to date with safeguarding adults training. The lack of this training means that staff may not understand the signs of abuse or the aspects of the safeguarding process relevant to them which could place people at risk.

Is the service effective?

Prior to people being admitted into the home the manager visited the person to carry out an assessment of their needs to ensure the home could meet all of those assessed needs. The manager said that if possible people were encouraged to spend some time at the home having lunch and meeting staff and other people living at the home before a decision was made about moving in.

Staff told us told us that the staff team all worked well together and provided a high standard of care.

Is the service caring?

The atmosphere in the home felt relaxed and friendly. From our observations we saw that care staff had a good understanding of people's individual needs and personalities. We saw that staff were kind and sensitive in their approach to people.

We observed that people looked well cared for and were appropriately dressed.

All of the people we spoke with who were living at the home indicated that they were happy and had everything they needed.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that where appropriate the service had accessed advice and care from other health care professionals. For example we saw evidence of visits from the GP, the district nurse and we saw that people attended hospital appointments. This meant the provider sought relevant professional advice and guidance appropriately.

Is the service well-led?

The service was led by a manager that is registered with the Care Quality Commission.

The manager was described by staff as approachable and supportive.

Improvements were needed to the systems in place to enable the manager to monitor quality and identify risk. This would help to ensure that people received a safe and effective service.

We observed care within the lounge and dining room areas and we saw that people were cared for in a calm, respectful and supportive manner. Staff members asked people for their permission before carrying out care tasks.

We looked at the systems in place for managing medicines. The systems in place were safe but records were not always completed accurately. We have asked the provider to take action about this.

We found that there was an effective recruitment procedure in place to ensure that appropriate people were recruited to work at the home. Although procedures had been followed there was no evidence to support this. After our inspection the provider wrote to us and confirmed that the appropriate information had been recorded in the files. We saw that there sufficient numbers of suitably qualified and experienced staff on duty to ensure that people's needs were met.

The people we asked told us they were not clear about how they would make a complaint but they also told us that they had no need to complain. There was an effective complaints procedure in place and complaints were dealt with in line with the company's policy.

At the time of the inspection there were twelve people living at Rosemount Care Home. During the course of the inspection we met and spent time with four people who used the service and spoke with three relatives. One person said: 'I like living here its home from home, it's not swish like some places but it suits me.' Another person said: 'Listen, you don't hear bells here every five minutes and that's because the staff know us and our routines.' We also spoke with a relative who told us: 'You can't fault them (the staff), really you can't, they are kind and they genuinely care about people.'

We spoke with two carers, the registered manager, maintenance person, the domestic staff member and the chef. Staff told us they felt well supported by the manager and had received staff supervision and training since our last inspection.