Tudor Rose

Updated 9 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 10 and 12 October 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection was completed by one inspector.

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 reviewed the information included in the PIR along with information we held about the service, for example, statutory notifications. A notification is information about important events, which the provider is required to tell us about by law.

During the inspection, we spoke with two people and had brief interactions with the other two people who lived at the service, we also spoke with three relatives. We observed how staff interacted with people during the provision of their care.

We spoke with two care staff, a registered manager from one of the provider’s other services and the operations manager. On the second day of the inspection the registered manager, who was on leave, came into the service and met with us.

We reviewed records that included two people’s care plans, two staff recruitment and supervision records and records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 9 November 2018

Tudor Rose is a residential care home for up to five younger adults living with a learning disability or autism. At the time of our inspection there were four women living at Tudor Rose. The service, which is a detached house is located close to the town of Alton.

At our last inspection we rated the service good overall, but requires improvement in the key area of effective, with no breaches of the regulations. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained good.

Processes, training and systems were in place and operated effectively to ensure people were kept safe from the risk of abuse. Risks to people had been assessed and measures taken to manage any potential risks to people.

There had been issues with staff recruitment, but the provider had taken appropriate action to address this for people and there were sufficient staff rostered to meet people’s needs. The provider operated robust recruitment procedures.

People’s medicines were safely managed by trained staff. There were processes in place to protect people from the risk of acquiring an infection. Incidents were reviewed, and any required improvements were made to reduce the risk of re-occurrence for people.

People’s needs were assessed, and the delivery of their care was underpinned by relevant guidance. Technology was used to enhance people’s experience of the care provided. Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver people’s care.

People were supported by staff to make choices about their meals. Staff worked both within and across organisations to ensure people received effective care. Staff supported people to meet their healthcare needs. People’s needs were met by the design of the premises. People were supported to make their own decisions and, where people lacked the capacity to make a decision, legal requirements were met.

People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion by the staff who provided their care. People were supported to express their views and to be actively involved in making decisions about their care. People were supported to maximise their independence.

People contributed to the planning of their care. Staff supported people to undertake activities that were socially and culturally relevant to them. People had access to a wide range of opportunities including voluntary work. Processes were in place to enable people or their representatives to raise any issues or concerns about the service.

The provider had a clear set of values which underpinned the delivery of people’s care by staff. These included; empowering, together, honesty, outstanding, and supportive. There was an experienced registered manager in post to run the service.

The views of people, relatives and staff about the service had been sought and used to improve the service. Processes were in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and to identify areas for improvement which were acted upon for people. The service worked in partnership with relevant agencies for the benefit of people.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.