Archived: Rosywood Care Services

This inspection took place on the 22 and 23 July 2015 and was announced.

Rosywood Care Services at the time of the inspection was supporting ten people within their own homes in the area of Milton Keynes with end of life care. The service was also providing personal care to twenty four older people who were living within their own homes in Leicestershire. In some instances the service supported people with household chores and shopping, which fall outside of the regulatory framework.

Rosywood Care Services was registered as part of Rosywood Care Services Limited by the Care Quality Commission on 5 May 2015. Prior to this Rosywood Care Services was registered under SJNM Ltd. People who used the service and staff employed prior to this date transferred to the newly registered provider. Our inspection focused on the period following the service’s registration in May 2015.

The service did not have a registered manager. 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. The registered provider told us they were in the process of interviewing for the position of registered manager. The service was being managed by two acting managers. We were advised by the provider that the two acting managers would be submitting an application to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to become registered.

People who used the service and who lived in Milton Keynes were supported by the office registered in Leicester. The registered provider told us it was their intention to submit an application to CQC for an additional location to be registered within Milton Keynes and that this would include an application for a registered manager.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe when staff was providing personal care and support and that when staff used equipment this was managed well. People’s records showed that risk assessments had been carried out and plans of care developed to reduce risk and promote people’s safety. However, we found that one person’s plan of care was unclear and lacked clarity which had the potential for the person not to receive their care safely.

People told us that where they needed support with their medicine this was provided by staff. We found there were sufficient staff to provide people’s care and keep them safe and that staff had received training to enable them to meet people’s needs safely.

Staff had undergone a period of induction and had worked alongside experienced staff prior to working independently and providing personal care and support. Staff training was provided ‘on-line’ via e-learning (computer based), with some practical training in the moving and handling of people and the use of equipment. Staff were supervised which provided them with the opportunity to discuss their training needs.

People’s plans of care recorded how they wished their personal care to be provided, which included information as to the provision of drinks and meals where people required this type of support.

We received positive comments about staff from those using the service and their relatives. They told us that staff were kind, caring and that their privacy and dignity was respected. People expressed some concerns about staff in that they did not always receive care from the same staff and that in some instances they found it difficult to understand what staff were saying due to language differences, we asked the registered provider to address this. Conversations with staff showed that they were had a caring approach to their work and the people they supported.

People’s views had been recorded within their plans of care which recorded their preferences about how and when their care was to be provided. People’s plans of care were reviewed, however sometimes their timescale for their review had lapsed.

People told us that staff did not always arrive on time and were late but told us they were notified of this. People told us that staff stayed for the agreed length of time and always ensured they were safe and had everything they needed before leaving their homes.

Relative of those using the service and the people themselves told us they knew how to raise concerns and that they had a copy of the complaints procedure. We found that the experience of people contacting the service was not always consistent as people provided mixed views as to whether the provider and acting managers responded to telephone queries, with one relative telling us that staff did not always return their phone calls. We reported this to the manager who agreed to look into this.

Staff told us that they communicated well with each other to ensure all staff knew about the care provided to people and their health and wellbeing. Staff recorded the care provided within people’s records, which were kept in their home.

A staff meeting had taken place and the position of co-ordinator created to improve communication. The registered provider told us that the care co-ordinator ensured people received the personal care and support they required and provided an out of hour’s service during the evening and weekends. The role of the care co-coordinator was far ranging and therefore had the potential for them to be unable to respond to all queries in a timely manner.

Staff views about the approachability and support from the management team were mixed, a majority said that the managerial team were supportive, however one member of staff said they required further support.

Records showed that people were consulted as to their views of the service, either in person or by telephone. Comments in the main showed people were satisfied with the service. Further quality audits had been identified but as yet to be completed as the service was newly registered.

The registered provider had a system for the recording of complaints, which included a form as to how the complainant was responded to and any subsequent action that would be taken to address concerns and improve the service. The registered provider had not received any complaints or compliments since their registration in May 2015.