Archived: Roseland Care Limited

Updated 8 March 2023

Inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one inspector, a member of the medicines team 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.

Service and service type

Roseland Care Limited is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and we looked at both during this inspection.

This service is required to have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

At the time of our inspection there was no registered manager in post. However, the new manager was in the process of registering with CQC.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we held about the service and the provider which included any statutory notifications sent to the CQC. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. The provider was not asked to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR) prior to this inspection. A PIR is information providers send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

During the inspection we reviewed 6 people's care plans and risk assessments. We reviewed staff training and supervision records. We also reviewed other records relating to the management of the service. We spoke with the new manager, the senior area manager, and 6 staff. We spoke with 8 people, 2 visiting friends and a relative.

Updated 8 March 2023

About the service

Roseland Care Limited is a care home providing personal and nursing care to up to 36 people. The service provides support to people of all ages with a range of health needs, physical disabilities and people with cognitive impairment. At the time of our inspection there were 34 people using the service.

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

There was no registered manager in post at the time of this inspection, as they had left immediately following the last inspection. A new manager had been in post for the past six weeks and was in the process of registering with the CQC.

There had been improvements in the oversight and governance of the service since the last inspection. The provider was visiting very regularly and supporting the new manager. The senior regional manager was present at the time of this inspection.

There was an accurate record of all staff supervision and appraisals. Staff told us they that their support had improved since the new manager arrived. However, many care staff had not had recorded supervision in the last year, which was not in line with the providers policy. The manager had a plan to provide supervision to all staff in the coming months.

The recording of monitoring records, by staff, had improved since the last inspection. For example, when people were having their food and drink intake recorded. These records were regularly totalled; however, they was no evidence of them being reviewed by senior staff to ensure people always had sufficient quantities of food and drink to meet their needs.

The service was facing challenges in receiving a timely supply of some prescribed medicines. This had led to two people not always having their medicines as prescribed. The service was being proactive and was regularly chasing up these medicines, but the delay was beyond their control. We have made a recommendation about this in the safe section of this report.

We found some named confidential information was being displayed in the manager’s office on noticeboards. This office was not always occupied, and the door was always open. This was removed immediately.

Staff training was recorded and monitored. There was a programme of updates scheduled to take place to ensure staff had the knowledge and skills needed for their role.

The new manager was knowledgeable about the people living at the service and the staff. There was a programme of audits in place and these were regularly reviewed by the provider. All the audits were up to date and there was evidence of actions taken when improvements had been required. All accidents and incidents were recorded, audited and reviewed by the provider.

Daily ‘flash’ meetings were taking place each weekday at 11am. All heads of department met with care staff, nurses and management to share information and encourage effective communication. Staff told us, “Everything is so much better recently. It feels more organised. Morale is better and communication is good now.”

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs. Recruitment processes were robust. Files were organised and contained all of the required checks to ensure people were safe to work with vulnerable people. The service was in the process of recruiting new staff. The numbers of agency staff being used had reduced since the last inspection. Agency staff on shift were consistent and knew the people living at the service.

There was a handover record used for each shift change. It contained information about each person’s needs. However, some of the information was not always up to date. This was addressed immediately.

There was a system in place to monitor the Personal Identification Numbers (PIN) of all employed nurses. The PIN is compulsory for working as a nurse in the UK.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) records were accurate and tallied with the local authority records. 2 authorisations were in place at the time of this inspection.

For more information, please read the detailed findings section of this report. If you are reading this as a separate summary, the full report can be found on the Care Quality Commission (CQC) website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection:

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (Published 3 September 2022)

Why we inspected

We carried out this inspection to follow up on action we told the provider to take at the last inspection.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.