Rotherview

Updated 24 February 2022

The 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.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of COVID-19, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) practice is safe and that services are compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 7 February 2022 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection.

Updated 24 February 2022

The inspection took place on 16 May 2018 and was unannounced, which meant that nobody at the service knew we would be visiting. The last comprehensive inspection took place in December 2015 when the registered provider was meeting with the regulations and the service was rated as good. You can read the report from our last inspections, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Rotherview’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Rotherview Care Home is a two storey premises located close to Rotherham town centre. There are local facilities and public transport links close by. The home caters for up to nine people between the ages of 18 to 65 years of age who have a learning disability.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they felt safe living at the home and we saw there were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about safeguarding vulnerable people and were able to explain the procedures they would follow should an allegation of abuse be made.

People received personalised care which was based on their individual needs. People were involved in activities of their choice and had the freedom to lead a life without restrictions. The registered provider had a complaints procedure which was displayed in the home. People who used the service and their relatives were aware of this procedure and felt able to discuss any concerns with the staff.

We saw staff enabled people who used the service to follow their preferred interests and be as independent as possible.

Procedures were in place to ensure people were protected from the risk of infections.

There were enough skilled and experienced staff available to meet people's needs and enable them to follow their hobbies and interests. The company's recruitment system helped the employer make safe recruitment decisions when employing staff.

People received their medications in a safe and timely way, from staff that had been trained to carry out this role.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The staff we spoke with had a good understanding and knowledge of this and people who used the service had been assessed to determine if a DoLS application was required.

People were fully involved in choosing what they wanted to eat and drink. Staff told us each person selected the main menu on one day each week, but alternatives were also available. We saw people were also involved in shopping and preparing meals.

Staff were trained to carry out their role and felt they had the necessary skills to do their job. Through our observations we saw staff knew people well and understood their needs. Healthcare professionals were accessed as required.

Care records reflected people's needs and preferences, as well as any risks associated with their care. These provided staff with detailed guidance about how to support people and keep them as safe as possible. Support plans and risk assessments had been reviewed and updated regularly to ensure they were meeting each person's needs. People had consented to their support.

People participated in a various activities and outings of their choice.

The provider had a complaints policy to guide people on how to raise concerns.

People who used the service had been encouraged to share their views on the registered provider via questionnaires and at regular meetings. Surveys had also been used to gain relative's opinion of the service provided to their family members.

We found a shortfall in the management audit systems and a lack of management oversight in some systems and processes.