Rosedale/Rosewood is a purpose-built care home that consists of two attached bungalows with a connecting door. The service provides accommodation and personal care for up to six people with learning disabilities. At the time of this inspection there were five people living there who had been at the service since it opened in 2001.

The last inspection of this service was carried out on 5 August 2015. At that time we found the provider had breached two regulations. This was because there were gaps in necessary training for staff and staff had had not received supervision at regular intervals so they were not supported in their role. Also some people’s care records were out of date and incomplete, so it was not possible to determine whether these still reflected people’s needs or whether staff were providing support in the right way.

During this inspection we found the provider had made improvements to address both these matters. Staff now received the necessary training and support to make sure they were confident in their roles. Also people’s care records had been reviewed and updated to make sure they reflected people’s needs. This meant staff had current guidance to support people in the right way.

There was a registered manager at the service who had been in post for just over one year. 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.

The five people who lived at this home had learning disabilities and some people had limited communication. This meant they could not tell us their views about the service. Relatives told us people felt “safe” with the staff and were “happy” at the home.

Staff had up to date training in safeguarding adults. They were aware of their responsibilities to report any concerns and were confident these would be dealt with by the provider.

There were enough staff on duty to help keep people safe and to go out into the community. Most staff had worked at the home for several years or had transferred from other homes operated by the provider. There had been only a small number of new staff members start work here since the last inspection. The provider carried out the right checks to make sure new staff members were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Staff supported people with their medicines. There had been mistakes with medicines management over the past year. The staff had worked closely with healthcare professionals to manage medicines in a safer way. Some staff had been retrained and there were more robust checks of medicines.

Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for people who lacked capacity to make a decision and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards to make sure they were not restricted unnecessarily. For example five people needed staff support and supervision when out in the community because they had little understanding of road safety. Two people had support from an independent advocate to make sure their rights were protected without compromising their safety.

Relatives said people enjoyed the meals at their home. They were supported with their nutritional health and staff prepared meals which met their individual dietary needs. People were supported to be involved in shopping, choosing and preparing meals where possible.

There were good relationships between people and staff. People were encouraged to make their own choices and decisions about their day to day lives, wherever their capabilities allowed. Staff were respectful of people’s individual and diverse needs. Relatives and care professionals said people were treated with dignity and respect.

Relatives told us they felt people were well cared for in the home. Staff were very knowledgeable about people’s individual preferenc

During the visit, we met with four people who used the service. People had limited verbal skills and found it difficult to make direct comments about many aspects of the service therefore we spent time observing the practice.

One staff member we spoke with told us, “I love my job” and “The people who live here come first.” Another staff member told us, “Our priority is the people who live here.” We spoke with two people with limited verbal skills who were able to confirm that they were happy living at the home.

We spoke with staff and found that they were very knowledgeable about people's likes and dislikes and how they wished to be supported. We were able to see how people's skills and independence were promoted. We saw that staff were very caring and supportive of people.

We saw that people who used the service had a choice of food and drink and were involved in menu planning and shopping for food.

We saw that there was enough staff on duty to care and support people who used the service.

At the last inspection we found that staff appraisals were not up to date. At this inspection we checked the action the manager had taken to ensure that these were now up to date. We looked at five staff records which showed that appraisals had been carried out in May 2013.

People we spoke with told us they liked living at the service. They had a pet cat and were involved in conversations during our inspection. One person confirmed that they liked the staff who worked at the service and they liked their bedroom.

The bedrooms in the service were large and decorated for each individual. The communal areas were tidy and large enough for people to use comfortably.

The service was located on its own grounds with a large garden to the rear of the building.

We spoke with five people using the service. People were very positive about living at the home, and spoke about a number of activities they had undertaken.

One person told us "I'm going to a party tonight, where I'll be dancing." Another person told us "I like football", and they showed us a football book they had bought that morning. This person also sat with us and we read together their care records.

Another person showed us their room, and we saw that it had been personalised, and had decorative lights on the wall.

We sat with people in the living rooms, and people showed us the clothes they were going to wear to a party that night. They also showed us some of their belongings that they enjoyed using, such as a guitar.

We were able to observe people’s experiences of living in the home and their interactions with each other and the staff. We observed staff encourage people to remain as independent as possible. For example helping to put their own washing away or choose their own clothes to wear later in the day. People made their own decisions about what activity they wanted to do and staff offered support where needed.

Rosedale/Rosewood is a purpose-built care home that consists of two attached bungalows with a connecting door. The service provides accommodation and personal care for six people with learning disabilities. The six people had lived there since it opened in 2001.

This inspection was carried out on 30 July and 5 August 2015. The last inspection of this home was carried out on 17 December 2013. The service met the regulations we inspected against at that time.

There had been three changes to the management of the home over the past year. At this time there was a new manager in post who had not yet registered with the Care Quality Commission. 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.

During this inspection we found the provider had breached a regulation relating to the support and development of staff. This was because staff had not received supervision at regular intervals so they were not being offered support in their role or identifying the need for any additional training. Also the provider’s records showed the required training for some staff had not been achieved or had expired, although updated training was now planned.

We found the provider had breached a regulation relating to care records. This was because people’s support plans had not been reviewed in a timely way, some were incomplete and few staff had signed to show they had read them. This meant it was not possible to determine whether the support plans still reflected people’s needs and whether staff were providing support in the right way.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

The six people who lived at this home had learning disabilities and some people had limited communication. This meant they could not tell us their views about the service. Relatives told us people felt “safe” and “comfortable” with the staff and were “happy” at the home. One relative told us, “I have no concerns about it. My [family member] is always eager to get back so I know he enjoys it and feels safe there.”

Staff were able to describe the procedures for reporting any concerns and told us they would have no hesitation in doing so. There had been some changes to staff but relatives felt there were enough staff to support people. The provider made sure only suitable staff were employed. Staff helped people to manage their medicines and did this in a safe way.

Relatives were confident that the service met the needs of the people who lived there. One relative told us, “The staff really know [my family member] and can always tell me how they have been.” People were supported in the right way with their meals so their independence as well as nutritional well-being was promoted. They were encouraged to be involved in shopping and choosing meals. People were supported to access healthcare services when they needed to.

Relatives made positive comments about the “friendly” and “caring” attitude of staff. For example, a relative commented, “The staff are so nice and [my family member] seems happy with all of them.”

The interaction between people and staff members was friendly and relaxed. Staff were supportive and patient, so that people could communicate and make choices at their own pace.

Relatives felt staff understood each person and supported them in a way that met their specific needs. They felt fully involved in reviews about their family member’s care. Relatives told us they felt people were well cared for in the home. Each person had a range of social and vocational activities they could take part in. People were reminded how to make a complaint and relatives felt confident they could raise any issues, if necessary, with staff.

There had been three different managers running the home over the past year. Relatives felt this had had little impact on the care service to their family members. Staff felt the senior staff and manager were approachable and supportive.

The provider had a number of systems to check the quality and safety of the service including audits by staff and peer reviews by managers and people from other services. However there was an inconsistency in whether people were supported to have the same opportunities to comment on the running of the service they received. There had been few opportunities for staff to receive group instruction on expected practices or to give their views about the care service.