1 April 2014
During a routine inspection
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at, and what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us.
If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People felt safe at the home. One person who used the service told us, 'The staff won't shout.' A relative said their family member felt safe at Rosywood House. Staff knew what to do if they had concerns about the well-being of any of the people who lived in the home.
Staff had been trained in safeguarding (protecting vulnerable people from abuse) and knew what to do if they were concerned about the well-being of any of the people who used the service. They also knew how to escalate a concern if they felt it hadn't been properly addressed.
Staff had been safely recruited with background checks done to help ensure they were fit to work with the people who use the service.
The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
Is the service effective?
Staff were effective in supporting people. They were knowledgeable about their needs and where they might be at risk. Care plans were person-centred and records showed people had made significant progress since coming to the home and become more independent and self-caring.
Records showed staff worked closely with GPS, community nurses, and other health and social care professionals to ensure people had the best care available. Each person who used the service had a health and well-being chart which was shared with relatives and other professionals where appropriate. This helped to ensure that everybody involved in the care of each person was up to date with their needs and progress.
This meant that people were sure their individual care needs and wishes were known and planned for and that they the support they needed to live active and healthy lives.
Is the service caring?
The staff we met were warm and caring. One person who used the service told us, 'I like all the staff here.' They showed us the staff rota and told us the names of everyone who supported them. A relative said the staff did a good job. They commented, 'All the staff I've met have been great.' Staff got on well with the people who used the service and understood their needs, preferences, likes and dislikes.
Staff had general and service-specific training including courses on autistic spectrum disorders and other learning disabilities. When we visited not all staff had taken a particular course in managing behaviour that challenges us. We suggested all staff should do this before they worked unsupervised with people who sometimes displayed behaviour that challenges us.
Is the service responsive?
The home had a happy and relaxed atmosphere. We met one person who used the service and they appeared settled and comfortable. They got on well with the staff and moved about the home freely. During out visit they went out for lunch with a staff member which was their choice.
We talked to this person about life at Rosywood House. They told us what they liked about the home and how the staff supported them. They said, 'It's nice here and I'm happy. The staff help me get ready in the morning and take me to the friendship group (a social get together).'
A relative told us, 'It's a very good home and my relative is very happy there. The staff look after him well and he always looks healthy and fit. They keep him busy and make sure he has things to look forward to.'
One person who used the service showed us the home's menu and pointed out their favourite meals. They told us they liked the food and were able to have drinks and snacks whenever they wanted. Menus showed a variety of different dishes were provided with people's favourites included. Staff said the menus were flexible as people sometimes changed their minds about what they wanted on the day.
Is the service well-led?
People were consulted about their care. One person who used the service was happy to see the manager and managing director when they visited the home during our inspection. They both spent time talking with this person and making sure he was OK before they came to meet with us.
Relatives were invited to contribute to annual evaluations of the service and to attend six monthly review meetings. Their input had led to changes to the home's activity programme and to the ways in which behaviour that challenges us was managed. This showed that relatives were listened to and their views taken into account.
The home had a system to assure the quality service they provided. The way the service was run had been regularly reviewed. Records showed prompt action had been taken to improve the service or put right any shortfalls they had found.
When we visited the home had a mixture of permanent and respite placements. Staff told us all the people who used the service, both permanent and respite, knew each other and got on well. The person we met told us he liked the people who came for respite and enjoyed going on holiday and to the pub with one of them.