CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rowallan House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was following safe infection prevention and control procedures. They found arrangements for visiting, testing, PPE, social distancing, cleaning and managing possible infections.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, September 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The inspection took place on 19 August 2020 and was announced. It was a targeted inspection about infection prevention and control during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found suitable arrangements for visits, testing, staff training, protective equipment, social distancing and cleaning. They were assured that people were protected from infection and that the home could respond if someone developed symptoms or tested positive.
This was not a full inspection of the home. The service was inspected but not rated, so the report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the other four questions.
Controlled visiting
Visits were arranged in advance, limited in length and supported by symptom checks, PPE and cleaning between visits. A separate telecom room was also created for family visits.
“All visitors were required to arrange an appointment on specific days to visit and declare if they had any symptoms of Covid-19.” from the report
Testing arrangements
The home had arrangements to test people and staff for Covid-19 and was following government guidance on testing.
“The provider had appropriate arrangements to test people and staff for Covid-19 and was following government guidance on testing.” from the report
Staff training and PPE
Staff had training in Covid-19, infection control and PPE. Inspectors saw staff wearing PPE, and the home had systems intended to prevent shortages.
“All staff had received training on Covid-19, infection control and the use of PPE.” from the report
Plans for symptoms or positive tests
The home had systems for isolating people who developed symptoms or tested positive, including designated areas if they did not want to isolate in their rooms.
“Systems were in place should people display symptoms or test positive for Covid-19, which included isolating in their rooms.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now, and how have they changed since the inspection on 19 August 2020?
- 02How are visitors currently screened, provided with PPE and supported to visit safely?
- 03How often are residents and staff tested when there is a suspected infection or outbreak?
- 04What happens if a resident develops symptoms or tests positive, including if they do not want to stay in their room?
- 05What are the home's current arrangements for staff training, sickness and returning to work after illness?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures during the Covid-19 pandemic; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 September 2020 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, February 2020
Rowallan House was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with better incident learning still needed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 21 January 2020. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care plans, risk assessments, staff records, medicines records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, enough staff, safe medicines management and appropriate staff checks. People were treated kindly, involved in decisions and supported with activities, healthcare and personalised care.
There were two areas to improve. The home had not analysed incidents to identify patterns and prevent them happening again. It also did not yet have audits of care plans and risk assessments, although inspectors found no concerns with those records. The home remained Good, as these issues did not lead to a lower rating.
Individual risk planning
Risk assessments reflected people's individual needs, including risks from falls, skin problems, health conditions and high-risk medicines.
“Risk assessments were carried out and were specific to people's individual needs.” from the report
Staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and saw staff respond quickly to requests. Medicines were administered as prescribed and managed safely.
“There were appropriate numbers of staff on duty to support people safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff had positive relationships with people and respected their privacy, dignity and choices. People were encouraged to do tasks independently where possible.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Activities and social contact
People took part in regular group and individual activities. Staff supported people to follow their interests and avoid social isolation.
“People were supported with regular activities.” from the report
Approachable management
People, relatives and staff said managers were approachable and supportive. Feedback was collected and used to make improvements.
“There was an effective system to gather people's and staff feedback on the service.” from the report
Learning from incidents
needs fixingIncidents were recorded, but the home had not analysed them for patterns or lessons. Inspectors recommended following best practice in incident management.
“However, analysis of the incidents had not been carried out to identify trends and minimise the risk of re-occurrence, so lessons could be learned.” from the report
Audits of care records
minorThe manager was involved in updating care plans but there was no system for regularly auditing care plans and risk assessments. The manager said they would look at introducing these checks.
“The registered managed was involved in developing and updating care plans but told us systems were not in place to carry out audits on care plans and risk assessments.” from the report
- 01How do you now analyse incidents to identify trends and prevent similar incidents happening again?
- 02Have regular audits of care plans and risk assessments now been introduced, and who checks them?
- 03How do you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient when people need help or staff are absent?
- 04How are people's individual interests used to plan activities, including for people who do not want to join group activities?
- 05How can relatives raise concerns, and how quickly are complaints reviewed and answered?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the care provided and the home premises; all ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 February 2020 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 Rowallan House
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 January 2011.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Redbridge
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 £1,250 a week. 75 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.