Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Roseberry Care Centres

Long Meadow

Bakewell Road, Matlock, DE4 3BN

Goodpublished 31 March 2025, 17 months ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, December 2023

Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found people at risk from unsafe care, weak safeguarding and poor management systems.

This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 3 and 9 October 2023, spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, training, recruitment files, policies and audits.

The home was not always safe. Safeguarding concerns had not always been referred, important risk assessments and equipment were missing, records of incidents were incomplete, cleaning was not always completed, and staffing shortages meant planned care was missed.

The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective. Food checks and meal choices were inconsistent, some care plans were out of date, agency staff had not always received an induction, and the Mental Capacity Act process was not always followed correctly.

The home was rated Inadequate overall and for Safe and Well-led. It was placed in special measures, with warning notices issued for safe care, safeguarding and governance. CQC said it would re-inspect within six months of publication.

What inspectors praised

  • Medicines

    Inspectors found medicines storage was secure and clean, and records showed people received medicines as prescribed.

    “Medicines safety had improved since our last inspection.” from the report

  • Healthcare access

    People were supported to see healthcare professionals when needed. Records showed access to vaccinations and hospital passports.

    “People were supported to access healthcare services and support.” from the report

  • Some safety improvements

    The provider had fitted window restrictors and kept fire safety actions up to date.

    “window restrictors were in place and other actions to help ensure a safe environment such as fire safety measures had been completed.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

  • Safeguarding failures

    serious

    Safeguarding concerns recorded in care records were not always referred to the local authority. One care plan included guidance linked to seclusion after a previous fall.

    “Systems and processes were not always effectively operated to protect people from abuse.” from the report

  • Unsafe care and missing equipment

    serious

    Some risk assessments and care plans were missing or inconsistent. People did not always have the equipment identified as necessary for safe care.

    “Equipment had not always available to ensure people were provided with safe care.” from the report

  • Staffing and missed care

    serious

    Staff shortages affected cleaning and planned personal care. Staff said they could not always complete the care people needed.

    “Sufficient numbers of staff had not always been deployed to ensure cleaning tasks were completed and people received their care as planned.” from the report

  • Poor records and oversight

    serious

    Food, repositioning, accident, incident and behaviour records had gaps. Audits did not always identify problems that needed fixing.

    “Systems and processes designed to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of services and assess, monitor and reduce risks were not effectively operated.” from the report

  • Food choices and checks

    needs fixing

    Food temperature records were missing on several days and people were not always offered meal choices. Food quality and menu options varied.

    “We observed people were not always offered choices at mealtimes.” from the report

  • Agency staff induction

    needs fixing

    At least one agency carer had not received an induction before an earlier shift, including information about fire procedures and people's care plans.

    “We were concerned agency staff had not always been fully supported to work effectively in the home as they had not always had an induction at the time of their first shift.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What equipment identified as necessary in the report is now available, and how do you check it remains available?
  2. 02How are safeguarding concerns now recorded, referred to the local authority and notified to CQC?
  3. 03What staffing levels are now in place, and how do you make sure planned personal care and cleaning are completed?
  4. 04How are food temperatures, food stocks and meal choices checked and recorded each day?
  5. 05Has a registered manager now been appointed, and what evidence shows that the warning notices have been addressed?

This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 December 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Long Meadow

5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Inadequate.

  1. December 2023Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from Requires improvement
    Safe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate

    Read what inspectors found at Long Meadow →

  2. December 2022Requires improvement
    Safe: InadequateWell-led: Requires improvement

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. April 2022Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. March 2022Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. February 2021Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. April 2019Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. July 2016Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. May 2015

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 May 2015.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

About live-in careHow PrimeCarers works
Same provider

Other services run by Roseberry Care Centres GB Limited

11 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.

Cedar Grange

Beverley, HU17
Good
Residential
Rated 8 months agocare home

Chapel Lodge

Sheffield, S35
Good
NursingDementia
Rated 7 years agocare home
Nearby

Other care homes near Matlock

All in Derbyshire