Archived: Rosehaven Residential Care Home

Updated 15 June 2018

We carried out this comprehensive 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.

Rosehaven 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.

This comprehensive inspection visit took place on 30 April 2018 and was unannounced.

Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held on the service. This included notifications we had received from the provider, about incidents that affect the health, safety and welfare of people who lived at the home and previous inspection reports. We also checked to see if any information concerning the care and welfare of people supported by the services had been received.

We contacted the commissioning department at Blackpool council and Lancashire Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion for health and social care. This gave us additional information about the service.

The inspection team consisted of an adult social care inspector, an assistant 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. The expert by experience had a background supporting older people and people living with dementia.

As part of the inspection we used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the visit we spoke with a range of people about the service. They included six people who lived at the home and four friends and relatives. We also spent time observing interactions by staff. We used Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) to assist with this. SOFI is a structured tool to help us assess the care of people who were unable to talk to us about the care they received in services. This helped us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We spoke with the registered manager and six staff members. We looked at three people’s support plans, staff recruitment files, a staff training matrix, supervision records of staff and arrangements for meal provision. We also looked at records relating to the management of the home and the medication records of four people. We checked staffing levels. We also carried out a visual inspection of the building to ensure it was clean, hygienic and a safe place for people to live.

Updated 15 June 2018

The inspection visit took place on 30 April 2018

At a previous comprehensive inspection in June 2016 the service did not meet the requirements of the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014. At the last comprehensive inspection on 21 February 2017, the service had demonstrated improvements and was no longer in breach of the regulations. However we rated the service as requires improvement as further work was required by the service to ensure these improvements were sustained. This required consistent good practice over time so we carried out a further inspection on 30 April 2018.On this inspection the service was rated overall as good.

Rosehaven residential care home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 24 older people. The home is situated close to Stanley Park and local community facilities. Communal accommodation consists of a large lounge and a smaller lounge and dining room on the ground floor. Bedroom accommodation is situated on the ground, first and second floors. An en-suite facility is provided in nine of the bedrooms. There is a passenger lift for ease of access throughout the building.

At the time of the inspection 11 people lived at the home.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

We looked around the home to check it was safe and maintained, clean and hygienic. It was clean and hygienic throughout. We found the door to the sluice was unlocked, a door to the basement steps could be opened quite easily and people could access cleaning materials and toiletries throughout the home. The risk assessment showed people who lived at the home when we inspected were not at risk from these actions. The registered manager was aware the risk assessments would need updating on new admissions or where there were changes in an individual’s care needs.

The back door, a fire door, was left unlocked to enable one person to go outside when they wanted. However this reduced the effectiveness of fire safety measures. The registered manager arranged for a keypad to be fitted the following day so fire safety was not compromised.

We found although equipment had been checked, serviced and maintained by external companies, there had been a gap in completing internal safety and maintenance checks and in record keeping. Regular internal checks had been reintroduced and records kept before we inspected, but a lack of consistent checks increased the risk of equipment not being in working order.

We made a recommendation that appropriate internal checks were carried out and records kept according to good practice guidelines.

There were several areas where maintenance or improvement to décor was needed to improve the environment. Several windows were in a poor state of repair. The service was awaiting delivery of new windows throughout the home to replace worn or damaged ones. Because the home was a listed building they had to be specially made so this was delaying replacement.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe and cared for at Rosehaven. They told us they were satisfied with the care they received and were supported by staff who kept them safe. There were procedures in place to protect people from abuse and unsafe care. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report unsafe care or abusive practices. We saw risk assessments were in place which provided guidance for staff in how to safely support people. This minimised potential risks.

The registered manager had improved the signage and dementia friendly equipment for people with dementia, such as special crockery, eating utensils and coloured toilet seats which contrasted with the toilet itself. However the carpets and décor were not always dementia friendly.

Medicines were managed safely. Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of according to the home’s procedure and good practice guidelines.

People told us staff were kind and helpful. Comments included, “It’s a very good service.” And, “They’re very cheerful here. I like it.” We observed good and caring interactions during the inspection. We saw staff spoke with people in a friendly and respectful way and provided personalised care that helped maintain people’s well-being. A relative told us, “I’m very happy with the care here.”

We saw staff supported people to access healthcare promptly. Staff provided care in a way that respected peoples’ uniqueness, dignity, privacy and independence.

We saw there were sufficient levels of staff to support people with personal care and social and leisure activities during the inspection. People who lived at Rosehaven and relatives spoken with told us there were enough staff. Staff recruitment was safe. Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people.

We saw staff focused on promoting dignity, respect and independence for people who lived at the home. People told us staff treated them as individuals and delivered care in the way the person wanted. Care plans were personalised, informative and reflected people’s needs and preferences. They had been regularly reviewed and updated.

Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People had been 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 said they had nutritious meals]#, the food was varied and they were offered drinks and snacks. Staff knew people’s nutritional needs, likes and dislikes.

There were safe infection control procedures and practices and staff had received infection control training. Staff wore protective clothing such as gloves and aprons when needed. This reduced the risk of infection.

The service had a complaints procedure which was made available to people who lived at Rosehaven and their representatives. There had been no complaints made to the home in the previous twelve months. The service had information with regards to support from an external advocate should this be required by them.

The management team completed audits to assess and monitor the quality and safety of the service. Action was taken when any areas for improvement were found.

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