CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Lifeways Community Care
Rosekeys
Gringley on the Hill, Gainsborough Road, Gringley, Doncaster, DN10 4RJ
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious risks involving safety, care, staffing and management.
Inspectors visited without notice on 28 November, 29 November and 11 December 2023. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and management audits.
They found people were at risk of avoidable harm. Medical advice was not always followed, medicines were not always given as prescribed, staffing did not always meet people's assessed needs, and some staff lacked the training and practical skills required.
Inspectors also found unlawful restrictions, poor safeguarding responses, incomplete care plans, a poorly maintained and unclean environment, and weak checks by managers and the provider. The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection, published in 2021, to Inadequate.
The home is in special measures. CQC will keep it under review and normally re-inspect within six months if it does not propose cancelling the provider's registration.
Some people felt safe
People and most relatives spoken with said they felt the home was safe.
“People and most relatives we spoke with felt the care provided was safe.” from the report
Safe recruitment checks
The report says staff recruitment checks were completed, including Disclosure and Barring Service checks.
“Staff were recruited safely. Staff had relevant Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks in place.” from the report
Personalised rooms
Some bedrooms were personalised, and some areas included decorations or features people could interact with.
“People's rooms were personalised and areas of the service had decorations people could interact with.” from the report
Some positive outcomes
There was evidence that at least one person was supported to complete a qualification that could help with future employment.
“There was some evidence of people achieving positive outcomes.” from the report
People were at risk of harm
seriousMedical advice was not always followed, risks were not properly assessed, and some environmental hazards were not dealt with. Inspectors said this left people at risk of serious or avoidable harm.
“This left people at risk of serious harm.” from the report
Safeguarding failures
seriousSome incidents involving restraint, possible psychological ill treatment and injuries were not reported promptly to the local safeguarding authority. People were therefore not always protected or independently reviewed.
“People were not protected from the risk of abuse. This was a breach of regulation 13 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.” from the report
Staffing and training
seriousStaffing did not always match people's assessed support needs. Some staff also used unsafe moving and handling techniques or did not have up-to-date training for people's health conditions.
“The provider failed to ensure sufficient numbers of staff were deployed.” from the report
Medicines and health advice
seriousMedicines were not always given as prescribed, and records and storage checks were incomplete. Advice about choking, weight loss and other health needs was not always followed.
“Medicines were not always given as prescribed.” from the report
Poor dignity and privacy
seriousThe environment and some care practices did not protect people's privacy or dignity. Examples included exposed personal items, unsuitable bedroom arrangements and incomplete privacy screening.
“The provider failed to ensure people were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousThe provider's checks did not identify or fix important risks, including problems with incidents, infection control, medicines, care plans and the condition of the building.
“The provider's systems and processes failed to assess, monitor, and improve the quality and safety of the service provided.” from the report
- 01What immediate changes have been made to ensure people's assessed staffing levels, including 2:1 support, are provided on every shift?
- 02How are safeguarding incidents, restraints, falls and possible abuse now recorded and reported to the local authority?
- 03How do you check that medicines, choking guidance, weight checks and other professional advice are followed for each person?
- 04How have care plans and risk assessments been updated, and how do you check that staff understand them?
- 05What action has been taken under the special measures plan, and what evidence can you show of improvement since the inspection?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, widened to include Effective after inspectors found a concern about deprivation of liberty; the report does not give separate current ratings for Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 February 2024 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.
Every inspection of Rosekeys
6 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has slipped, from Requires improvement to Inadequate.
- February 2024Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2021Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 January 2011.
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.
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.
Other services run by Lifeways Rose Care and Support Limited
1 other service on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.