CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lowenac
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective safeguarding systems, detailed risk assessments, enough staff and safe medicines management. Staff were trained to recognise and report abuse and to reduce risks while supporting positive risks for independence.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training, supervision and appraisals. The person was supported with nutrition, healthcare and activities that improved health and independence.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described as caring and compassionate and treated the person with dignity and respect. The person and relatives were involved in decisions and staff understood their preferences and communication needs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. The person was supported with college, hobbies, community activities, relationships and information in an accessible format.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a clear management structure, regular oversight and effective audits. Staff felt supported and confident that concerns would be acted on.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found caring, person-centred support, safe systems and strong management.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 4 March 2019. One inspector visited the home, spoke with the person living there, staff and managers, and later spoke with two relatives and two support workers. Records about care, medicines, staffing, training, safeguarding, incidents and quality checks were also reviewed.
The home supported one person at the time, although it could accommodate up to two people. Inspectors found that care was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Staff knew the person's needs and communication style, supported independence, worked with health professionals and treated the person with dignity.
The overall rating was Good, and all five key areas were rated Good. This means the inspectors found the legal requirements were met and that care and management were consistently good at the time of the inspection.
The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection, published in August 2016. The rating remained Good.
Personalised relationships
Staff knew the person's life history, preferences and communication needs. This helped them build positive relationships and provide individual care.
“The person was supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs.” from the report
Support for independence
The home helped the person develop confidence and independence through everyday tasks, college attendance, cycling and positive lifestyle choices.
“The person was supported to take positive risks to aid their independence.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found a warm and respectful approach. The person's views were listened to and they were involved in choices about their home and care.
“People received care from staff who developed positive, caring and compassionate relationships with them.” from the report
Strong oversight
Managers and staff understood the person's needs and held regular meetings and audits. The provider had a plan for ongoing improvements.
“The service had a range of effective quality monitoring arrangements in place.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you match the staffing team to my relative's needs, communication style and preferences?
- 02What restrictions or Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards arrangements would apply to my relative, and how would these be reviewed?
- 03How would you support my relative to build independence through activities such as college, work, household tasks or community life?
- 04How are medicines reviewed, and how would you support any planned reduction in medicines safely?
- 05How would my relative's family be involved in care reviews, decisions and complaints?
This was an unannounced planned inspection of the whole care home and all five key questions; the service had one person using it at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 March 2019 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.
What inspectors found, September 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with quality checks still developing because the home was new.
Inspectors visited the home on 16 August 2016. The visit was announced and included speaking with the person living there, staff, managers, a relative and a health and social care professional. They also observed care and checked records.
The home supported up to two people with a learning disability. One person was living there on the inspection day. Inspectors found the person relaxed, comfortable and well cared for. Staff knew the person well, respected their choices and supported activities, family relationships and independence.
Care plans and risk assessments were detailed and regularly reviewed. Staff were trained and supported, staffing levels met the person's needs, medicines records were checked, and complaints and safeguarding arrangements were in place.
The overall rating was Good. Each of the five areas was also rated Good. The report lists no breached regulations or enforcement action. The home had opened in November 2015, so its quality assurance system was still at an early stage.
Kind, respectful care
Staff were friendly, patient and caring. Inspectors saw relaxed relationships and found that privacy and dignity were respected.
“The person was relaxed and at ease with staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described the person's routines, preferences, communication needs and possible causes of anxiety. The person was involved in their care and future goals.
“Care plans were informative and contained clear guidance for staff.” from the report
Trained and consistent staff
The staff team was described as small, consistent, motivated and well trained. Staffing was flexible so the person could attend activities and appointments.
“Support was provided by a small, consistent, motivated and well trained staff team.” from the report
Family communication
Relatives received regular updates and were supported to stay involved in the person's life. There was also a complaints process in an accessible format.
“Relatives told us they received regular communication form the service so that they were kept up to date.” from the report
Quality checks were still developing
minorBecause the home was relatively new, its quality assurance system was still building up information and experience. Audits and feedback were in place, but this is an area to ask about.
“As a relatively new service, the quality assurance processes used by the service were still at an early stage of collecting and reviewing information.” from the report
- 01How have your quality assurance checks developed since this first inspection?
- 02How do you keep care plans and risk assessments updated when the person's needs or routines change?
- 03What staffing arrangements are in place if there is sickness or a gap on the rota?
- 04How will you support my relative to maintain family relationships and take part in activities they choose?
- 05How can my relative or our family make a complaint, and how will it be investigated?
This was an announced first inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home; one person was living there on the inspection day. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 September 2016 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 Lowenac
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 December 2014.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.