Rose Cottage

Updated 18 July 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 7 June 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of a single inspector.

Before the inspection, we reviewed information we held about the service, such as previous inspection reports, and any notifications received by the Care Quality Commission. A notification is information about important events, which the provider is required to tell us about by law. The provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). A PIR is information we require providers to send to 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 inspection, we spoke with three people who lived at the service. We spoke with two care staff and the registered manager and a visiting healthcare professional. We sampled records such as two care plans, health plans, medicine records, audits, and daily notes. Following the inspection we spoke with one staff member and one relative.

Updated 18 July 2018

Care service description

Rose Cottage is a residential care home for four people with learning disabilities. Rose Cottage is a detached building in the rural village of Mersham outside Ashford. The accommodation is spread between two floors. People had individual bedrooms and use of a shared bathroom, lounge kitchen and separate dining room.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

Rating at last inspection

At our last inspection we rated the service good. 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.

Why the service is rated good

People continued to be protected from potential harm and abuse by a staff team who were trained to identify safeguarding concerns. Where risks to people and the environment were identified, staff took action to mitigate the risk, whilst promoting people to take positive risks. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs. We reviewed recruitment files, the provider had completed the necessary pre-employment checks before staff worked unsupervised. Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely. People were protected by the prevention and control of infection. Lessons had been learned when things went wrong.

People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the service, and regularly thereafter in line with best practice. People were supported by a staff team that had received sufficient training and on-going supervision, and worked internally and externally to provide effective care and treatment. People were supported to eat and drink sufficient levels to maintain a balanced diet and were supported to access healthcare professionals as and when required. People lived in an environment that was suitable for people with learning disabilities and where required the provider had made the necessary adaptations to the service. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Staff knew how to recognise changes in people, and provided emotional support where necessary. People were supported to make their views known. Staff adapted communication according to each individual. People’s privacy, and dignity was respected. Staff supported people to be as independent as they could be.

People received personalised care responsive to their needs. People were supported to spend time doing meaningful activities. There had been no concerns or complaints raised since our last inspection, however people and their relatives knew how to raise concerns. At the time of our inspection no one was being supported with end of life care.

There was a clear culture of empowerment and openness within the service. People and their relatives told us the service was well-led and achieved good outcomes for people. The provider governance systems ensured that shortfalls in service delivery were identified and improvements actioned. The provider sought feedback from their stakeholders. The registered manager had formed links with the external agencies including the local authority safeguarding team.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.