Roselands Residential Home is a care home for up to 35 older people that require support and personal care. At the time of the inspection there were 34 people living in the home. The home is owned by Pleasantly Limited and is located in Brede, East Sussex.

Roselands Residential Home provides personal care and support to people with increasing physical frailty. There had been recent changes to the directors and senior management of Pleasantly Limited. The registered manager has plans to retire as soon as a new manager has been recruited.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained good and met all relevant fundamental standards.

The registered manager ensured that quality of care was maintained through continuous monitoring on a day to day basis and through monthly meetings with staff, families and people who lived in Roselands. It was acknowledged that the quality assurance systems needed to be developed to drive continuous improvement. There were a range of quality assurance audits but these had not been used to their full advantage. This had not impacted on the care delivery or people's safety at this time due to the depth of knowledge the registered manager and staff had on the people they supported. We were assured by the new area manager that the organisation will be introducing new quality assurance systems immediately to provide an overview of the service. be introduced and developed.

Staff knew how to recognise the signs of abuse and how to raise an alert if they had any concerns. Risk assessments were centred on the needs of the individual. Each risk assessment included clear measures to reduce identified risks and guidance for staff to follow or make sure people were protected from harm.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored to identify how the risks of recurrence could be reduced. Appropriate steps had been taken to minimise risks of falls for people.

There was a sufficient number of staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Thorough recruitment procedures were in place to ensure staff were of suitable character to carry out their role. Staff received essential training, additional training relevant to people’s individual needs, and regular one to one supervision sessions.

Medicines were stored, administered, recorded and disposed of safely and correctly. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and kept relevant records that were accurate.

Staff knew each person well and understood how to meet their support and communication needs. Staff communicated effectively with people and treated them with kindness and respect.

Peoples' care plans were person centred and enabled staff to meet their individual needs. Personal records included people’s individual plans of care, life history, likes and dislikes and preferred activities.

People were supported to have choice and their independence was promoted by staff who understood their individual needs. Staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible and the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The staff provided meals that were in sufficient quantity and met people’s needs and choices. People told us they enjoyed the food. Staff knew about and provided for people’s dietary preferences and restrictions.

People were promptly referred to health care professionals when needed. The activities provided were varied and met people's social needs.

The management team were open and transparent in their approach. They placed emphasis on continuous improvement of the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The inspection took place on 11 May 2015. Roselands Residential Home was last inspected on 16 May 2013 and no concerns were identified.

Roselands Residential Home is a care home for up to 35 older people that require support and personal care. At the time of the inspection there were 28 people living in the home. The home is owned by Pleasantly Limited and is located in Brede, East Sussex. Roselands Residential Home provides personal care and support to people increasing physical frailty.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 spoke positively of the home and commented they felt safe. Our own observations and the records we looked at reflected the positive comments people made.

People were safe. Care plans and risk assessments included people’s assessed level of care needs, action for staff to follow and an outcome to be achieved. People’s medicines were stored safely and in line with legal regulations. People received their medicines on time and safely.

People were happy and relaxed with staff. They said they felt safe and there were sufficient staff to support them. One person told us, “I feel safe here. I was living on my own and I am glad I’m in here”.

When staff were recruited, their employment history was checked and references obtained. Checks were also undertaken to ensure new staff were safe to work within the care sector. Staff were knowledgeable and trained in safeguarding and what action they should take if they suspected abuse was taking place.

Medicines were managed safely in accordance with current regulations and guidance. There were systems in place to ensure that medicines had been stored, administered, audited and reviewed appropriately, including the administration of controlled drugs and insulin.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. We found that the manager understood when an application should be made and how to submit one.

Where people lacked the mental capacity to make decisions the home was guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to ensure any decisions were made in the person’s best interests.

Accidents and incidents were recorded appropriately and steps taken by the home to minimise the risk of similar events happening in the future. Risks associated with the environment and equipment had been identified and managed. Emergency procedures were in place in the event of fire and people knew what to do, as did the staff.

Staff had received essential training and there were opportunities for additional training specific to the needs of the service, such as diabetes and administrating insulin. Staff had received both one to one and group supervision meetings with their manager, and formal personal development plans, such as annual appraisals were in place.

People were encouraged and supported to eat and drink well. One person said, “I like the food and I can choose what I want”. There was a varied daily choice of meals and people were able to give feedback and have choice in what they ate and drank. People were advised on healthy eating and special dietary requirements were met. People’s weight was monitored, with their permission. Health care was accessible for people and appointments were made for regular check-ups as needed.

People could choose how to spend their day and they took part in activities in the home and the community. People told us they enjoyed the activities, which included singing, films, and a visiting theatre. People were encouraged to stay in touch with their families and receive visitors.

People felt well looked after and supported, and were encouraged to be as independent as possible. We observed friendly and genuine relationships had developed between people and staff. One person told us, “They treat you well here, it’s a home from home.” A visitor told us, “Fantastic, we know mum is safe and happy.”

People were encouraged to express their views and completed surveys, and feedback received showed people were satisfied overall, and felt staff were friendly and helpful. People also said they felt listened to and any concerns or issues they raised were addressed. One person said, “If there is anything wrong, they sort it out quickly”.

Staff were asked for their opinions on the service and whether they were happy in their work. They felt supported within their roles, describing an ‘open door’ management approach, where management were always available to discuss suggestions and address problems or concerns.

The provider undertook quality assurance reviews to measure and monitor the standard of the service and drive improvement.

We spoke with four people who used the service. They all told us that they liked living at Roselands. One person said, “Staff are very nice, they treat me with respect and dignity. I only have to mention something and staff are willing to help me.” Another person told us, “The food is very good and the home is clean. I feel safe and secure here.”

We spoke with four members of staff. One care worker told us, “Care is never rushed here. There is no time limit and this helps us to provide the individual care that people need.” Staff were observed responding to routine and unplanned activities in a calm and professional manner.

We looked at five care plans and reviewed the way the home worked with other providers to ensure the health, safety and welfare of people in the home. Good working relationships had developed and effective recording processes had been put in place.

We found that the premises were well maintained and there was adequately maintained equipment available to meet the needs of people. There was appropriate training available for staff to use the equipment provided.

We saw that the home had appropriate processes for the employment of temporary and permanent staff at the home.

We reviewed the arrangements in place for the management of complaints and feedback. The people we spoke with understood how to raise any issues with the registered manager and the provider. There had been no formal complaints received by the home.

During our inspection we spent time reviewing records and talking to staff to ensure that the actions for improvement identified at our inspection in June 2011 had taken place. We spoke to the manager and one other member of staff. We looked at the action plans that had been provided and examined the changed processes that had been put in place. We also looked at policies and procedures. We looked at two care records to verify that the changes had been implemented. We found that improvements had been made.

We spoke with nine of the 26 people who use the service everyone told us they liked living at Roselands. One person told us, “It’s wonderful here the staff are lovely and look after me well”. Another person said, “It’s very good here, excellent in fact. I’ve never been away from home before and the way they deal with things here is good”.

People told us they were given choices about their care and treatment and were looked after in a respectful way. One person said, “All of the staff here would come and do whatever they could for you”. We found that there were plans in place to look after people safely and in a way that met each person's specific needs. We observed that staff spoke with people in a warm and relaxed way to get people's understanding and engagement. We saw that staff responded promptly and sensitively to requests for help. One relative told us, "This home is fantastic and if I could move in myself I would". People told us they felt safe in the home and were looked after by well trained staff. Most people told us there were enough staff around to look after them.

We found there were a number of systems in place to evaluate and review the quality of the service provided in the home.

People were satisfied with the care they received. Care plans were reviewed with people but the information in them was not detailed and could lead to inconsistent or unsafe care being provided. Some risks associated with people’s care such as people falling had not been assessed to make sure people were as safe as possible. Some practices did not reflect the latest guidance in how to manage some conditions such as diabetes. One person had moved into Roselands Residential Home without a proper assessment of their needs and we were concerned that the home had not really thought about whether the person’s needs could be fully met. People were able to make decisions about their day to day lives. Generally people were satisfied with the food although some felt there was room for improvement. The management of people’s medication needed some improvements to ensure systems were completely safe for people. People thought the home was always clean and tidy but we saw some areas where was a lack of procedures to make sure people were protected from risk of infections. People told us the staff were kind and caring but they may have to wait for things such as a bath. Staff had received some training but there were training shortfalls which needed to be addressed to ensure people got the best care possible. The service had surveyed people for feedback but did not really do any other checks or monitoring to ensure things ran smoothly and regulations they were required to meet were met. Some records lacked detail or were incomplete.