Tudor Rose Rest Home

Updated 14 February 2019

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.

This inspection took place on 14 January 2018 and was unannounced. Our inspection team consisted of one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has experience of using services.

We checked the information we held about the service and we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks them to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed other information about the service such as notifications they are required to submit to the Commission. This included information about incidents at the service and information we had received from the public. We used this information to formulate our inspection plan.

We spoke with five people who used the service, two relatives, three members of care staff, the deputy manager and the registered manager. We also sought the views of commissioners of the service. We did this to gain people’s views about the care and to check that standards of care were being met.

We observed how the staff interacted with people who used the service. We looked at three people’s care records to see if their records were accurate and up to date. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service including quality checks.

Updated 14 February 2019

We inspected this service on 14 January 2019 and this was an unannounced inspection. At our last inspection in August 2016 we rated the service, good overall and requires improvements within well led, as some quality assurance systems needed to be improved. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the evidence continued to support the rating of good; 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.

The service was registered to provide support for up to 27 older or younger people who may also be living with dementia or have a mental health need. There were people 19 living in the home at the time of our inspection.

Tudor Rose Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had 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.

People continued to receive safe care and were protected from the risks of abuse. The staff understood where harm may have occurred and took action when people were at risk of abuse. Staff knew why people needed medicines and when these should be taken. Staffing was organised flexibly to enable people to be involved with activities and do the things they enjoyed. The home was clean and the registered manager reviewed incidents to ensure lessons were learnt.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People made decisions about their care and staff helped them to understand the information they needed to make any decisions. Staff sought people’s consent before they provided care and they were helped to make decisions which were in their best interests. Where people’s liberty was restricted, this had been done lawfully to safeguard them.

People had food and drink that they liked and specialist and cultural diets were catered for. People’s health and wellbeing needs were monitored and they were supported to attend health appointments and screening programmes as required. Staff received training and support to ensure they could understand and meet people’s needs.

People had positive relationships with the staff who were caring and treated them with respect and kindness. People liked the staff who supported them and had developed good relationships with them. People had opportunities to be involved with a variety of activities and could choose how to spend their time. People maintained relationships with their families and friends who were invited to join in activities with them.

There were plans in place which detailed people’s likes and dislikes and these were reviewed regularly. People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint. Staff listened to people’s views about their care and they could influence the development of the service.

The registered manager and provider understood their legal responsibilities and kept up to date with relevant changes. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service to enable the registered manager and provider to drive improvement.