At the last inspection in May 2016 the service was rated good overall, although the safe domain was rated requires improvement because controlled drugs in injection form were not stored or recorded correctly. At this inspection we found the service had rectified this and we have rated it good in all domains.

The registered manager had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take appropriate action when required. Recruitment checks were carried out to ensure suitable people were employed to work at the home.

The registered manager understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people who lived at the home. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care and support people required.

Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported. People who received support or, where appropriate, their relatives were involved in decisions and consented to their care.

Staff responsible for assisting people with their medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required.

People received adequate nutrition and hydration. Their nutritional needs were assessed and appropriate diets were provided, such as diabetic diets and mashable diets.

We found people had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs were met.

People were encouraged to participate in a range of activities that had been organised.

People who used the service and their relatives knew how to raise a concern or to make a complaint. The complaints procedure was available and people said they were encouraged to raise concerns.

The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included regular audits of the service and staff and resident/relatives surveys to seek the views of people about the quality of care being provided.

We carried out an unannounced inspection of Rosevilla Residential Home on 23 May 2016. We arrived at the home at 10am and left at 6.30pm. The service had previously met all of the regulations we inspected against at our last inspection in November 2014.

The home provides personal care, support and accommodation for up to 35 older people who may also have dementia. Accommodation is provided on two floors, with lounges and dining rooms available on the ground floor. A passenger lift and stairs provide access to upstairs. At the time of the inspection there were 25 people residing in the home and another resident was in hospital.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

At this inspection we identified one breach of the relevant regulations in respect of the secure storage and recording of controlled drugs . You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

We found that whilst the administration, storage and disposal of other medications were safe, the provider did not have the correct systems in place for the storage and recording of controlled drugs. This meant that they were not stored securely and there wasn’t a clear audit trail for all controlled drugs received into the home. However, this had no impact on the people who used the service. This had had no impact on the people who used the service, but posed a risk that errors could be made because controlled drugs couldn’t properly be accounted for.

The experiences of people who lived at the home were positive.

Some people who used the service did not have the ability to make decisions about some parts of their care and support. Staff had an understanding of the systems in place to protect people who could not make decisions and followed the legal requirements outlined in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People’s needs were assessed and plans were developed to identify what care and support people required to maintain their health and wellbeing and foster their independence where possible.

People were protected from abuse. Staff were knowledgeable about the risks of abuse and reporting procedures. We found there were sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs and that safe and effective recruitment practices were followed.

Staff had good relationships with people who lived at the home and were attentive to their needs. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity at all times and interacted with people in a caring, respectful and professional manner.

People’s health care needs were met and their medicines were administered appropriately. Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments and liaised with their GP and other healthcare professionals as required to meet people’s needs. People were appropriately supported and had sufficient food and drink to maintain a healthy diet.

Staff received suitable induction and training to meet the needs of people living at the home. Staff were well supported by the manager. This meant people were being cared for by suitably qualified, supported and trained staff.

There were systems and processes in place to monitor the quality of the service. Audits were carried out and where shortfalls were identified the management were using the information to improve the service. This demonstrated that it was a learning organisation.

Rosevilla can accommodate up to 35 people who fall into the categories of older people. We were informed that the majority of people living at Rosevilla had some form of dementia.On the day of our inspection 27 people were accommodated at the service.

During this inspection we spoke with six people, including those with dementia, three relative's and three staff members including senior managers of the service. Comment cards were received from three people who offered their opinions about the service.

As part of this thematic inspection we also looked at how the service managed record keeping. We reviewed this outcome because we issued a compliance action at our last inspection due to concerns around record keeping at the service. We found that the provider had a detailed action plan in place to improve the standard of recording and that records were very person centred to the needs of people living at the service.

We saw that people with dementia were treated with care and compassion and were treated with dignity and respect. People living at Rosevilla and their relative's were overall positive about the service and their experiences of the care provided. Comments included:

"Our relative is a lot happier now with having company here"; "Our relative is really looked after and that’s very reassuring for us"; " We've no complaints but could always raise issues with the manager's" and "I like it here, it's champion."

Care records for people with dementia showed that staff were responsive to changes in their needs. We saw that health and social care professionals were consulted with, and that staff worked with other providers to ensure that people received the right care suitable to their changing needs.

Various quality assurance checks on the service helped to show systems were in place to ensure that the service was effectively managed. There was evidence of promoted good practices especially in identified risks for people with dementia who were at risk of falls.

Staff were positive about working for the service and felt they were well supported with their training needs to be able to meet the individual needs of the people living at Rosevilla. Staff received training in dementia which enabled them to provide safe and professional care.

We spoke with six relatives of people living at Rosevilla all of which made positive comments about the care and support their relatives received. Comments included “the care has been excellent. I can’t find any fault”; “the care provided is great”; “we are always made to feel welcome”; “its like an extended family” and “as far as we are concerned the care provided is fine.”

Visiting relatives also told us positive things about the staff team. These comments included “staff are always available and to hand” and “we can’t fault the staff.”

We saw that improvements had been made since our last visit in relation to staff training and the systems in place to gather people’s views on the service they receive.

During this visit we found that improvements were needed in relation to the management of records.

People using the service at Rosevilla confirmed that they were treated with respect and their dignity was maintained. People also told us that they were satisfied with the standard of care provided.

Comments received included: “I am treated well”; “The staff are quite good” and “The standard of care seems reasonable to me.”

Likewise, comments received from the representatives of people living at Rosevilla included: “I have no concerns whatsoever”; “They provide excellent care. I have no complaints or concerns” and “We are invited to social functions from time-to-time and are always made to feel welcome.”

Some people living at Rosevilla and their representatives highlighted that the environment was in need of refurbishment. For example, one relative reported: “It would be nice if the people living here had a return for the fees they pay. The building is in need of investment.”

The people living at Rosevilla were observed to be relaxed in their home environment and in the company of the staff team. No concerns, complaints or allegations were brought to our attention during the visit.

People living at Rosevilla residential home who were spoken with during our visit reported that they were treated well by staff. Comments received included; “On the whole I am well cared for”; “It’s not too bad here. I have settled in well and the staff are okay” and “In my opinion it’s not a bad place. I am listened to, can do as I please and there is help available if I need it.”

People also reported that they were generally satisfied with the standard of care provided and were of the opinion that staff understood their needs.

Comments received included: “I could not fault the staff. They do their best and are very helpful” and “The staff are always on hand if you need help and are always obliging.”

Some people using the service told us that there was a limited range of activities. For example one person said; “We can be sat here day in day out and it would be nice to have some activities and entertainment.”

People confirmed they felt safe living at Rosevilla and were observed to be relaxed in their home environment and in the company of the staff team.

This inspection took place on 14 November and 20 November 2014 and was an unannounced inspection.

Rosevilla Residential Home can accommodate up to 35 older people. The home provides services for people who are living with dementia. On the day of our inspection 27 people were accommodated at the service

There was a registered manager in place at the home. 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We found that the people who lived at Rosevilla Residential Home felt the care they received was good. Their relatives confirmed that they agreed with this. As far as possible the people who ran the home tried to provide a family atmosphere for the people who lived there and employed and managed staff in way that would promote this.

People were able to exercise choice such as about how they spent their time at Rosevilla Residential Home as well as what they ate at mealtimes. The home was clean and there were systems in place to make sure that people were safe.