Roses Care Services received a Good rating across all five key questions at this March 2016 inspection, demonstrating safe, person-centred domiciliary care for 44 people. The service was characterised by a visible and passionate registered manager, well-trained and supported staff, and robust governance systems including call monitoring and quality audits.
Strengths
· Staff understood safeguarding responsibilities and appropriate referrals were made to relevant authorities
· Risk assessments and risk management plans enabled positive risk taking and safe support
· Robust recruitment practices including DBS checks and shadowing before lone working
· Staff received regular training, supervision and appraisals supporting their development
· Service operated within MCA principles with best interest decisions involving families and professionals
Roses Care Services is a Good-rated domiciliary care agency supporting 38 people, with consistently caring, safe, effective and responsive practice evidenced across the inspection. The single area of concern is Well-Led, rated Requires Improvement due to inadequate formal auditing of medicine records, absent incident oversight documentation, and inconsistent staff reference-checking, though the provider had already engaged external consultancy support to address these gaps.
Concerns (4)
moderateGovernance: “the provider had no formal procedures in place to audit medicines records charts... this was not documented. There was also no overview of accidents and incidents.”
moderateRecord keeping: “some checks had been happening but were not always recorded... no overview of accidents and incidents. The registered manager reassured that only a small number occurred however this information was not available to us”
moderateMedication management: “the provider had no formal procedures in place to audit medicines records charts. The registered manager told us they checked these records on a regular basis... they appreciated this was not documented.”
moderateIncident learning: “There was also no overview of accidents and incidents. The registered manager reassured that only a small number occurred however this information was not available to us to view.”
Strengths
· People felt safe with staff and staff understood safeguarding responsibilities
· Risks to people's well-being were assessed, recorded and managed well
· Sufficient staffing levels with no missed visits reported and electronic monitoring system in place
· Staff were suitably trained, completed induction and shadowing programmes, and received regular supervision
· People were treated with dignity, respect and supported to remain independent