CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rowan/Beech House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were mostly assured that infection prevention and control procedures were being followed. They found concerns about PPE being worn at all times and about policies not always reflecting current guidance.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this inspection report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this inspection report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this inspection report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this inspection report.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Rowan/Beech House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found mostly good infection control, with some PPE and policy gaps.
Inspectors visited the home on 11 November 2020. This was an announced thematic inspection focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic. Eight people were living there at the time.
Inspectors were mostly assured that the home was protecting people from infection. They found visitor checks, testing arrangements, enough PPE, daily cleaning and safe admission procedures. Families could keep in touch through phones, virtual technology, garden visits and an external room.
There were some gaps. Inspectors were not confident that all staff wore PPE at all times, and some written policies did not match current government guidance. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Visitor safety
Visitors had temperature checks, completed a Covid 19 risk assessment and were expected to wear face coverings. A garden was available for safer family visits.
“All visitors were required to have their temperatures taken and complete a Covid 19 risk assessment form on arrival.” from the report
PPE and cleaning
The home had ample PPE and communal areas and bedrooms were cleaned daily.
“The provider had ample Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) at the service to ensure that staff could provide care safely.” from the report
Testing and admissions
People and staff were tested, and new admissions needed a test before entering the home. A protocol had been developed for safe admissions.
“All people admitted to the home were required to have a test before admission.” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to stay in contact with family and friends by phone, virtual technology and visits when weather allowed.
“The provider ensured that people using the service could maintain links with family members and friends.” from the report
PPE was not always used consistently
needs fixingInspectors were not confident that all staff wore PPE at all times in both homes. Extra checks and supervision discussions were added after the visit.
“we were not confident that all staff were wearing PPE at all times at both of the services.” from the report
Policies were out of date
needs fixingSome written policies did not reflect current government guidance and best practice, although most staff were working within best practice guidance. The manager sent a plan to update them.
“current written policies did not always reflect current government guidance and best practice.” from the report
- 01What checks are now made to ensure every member of staff wears and disposes of PPE correctly?
- 02Have all Covid 19 and infection control policies been updated to match current government guidance?
- 03How often are staff trained and supervised in infection prevention and the use of PPE?
- 04How are family visits arranged now, and is the garden or external room still available?
- 05What recent CQC ratings are available for caring, effective, responsive and well-led care, as these areas were not assessed in this report?
This was an announced thematic inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other key questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 December 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, March 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home supported nine people with mental health needs across two nearby houses. People said they felt safe and well supported. Inspectors saw friendly and respectful care, safe medicines administration, suitable staffing and detailed care plans.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report says the rating stayed the same as at the previous inspection and found no serious risks or concerns.
Safe medicines
Medicines records were checked for the previous month and were appropriately completed. Staff had medicines training, including specific training for insulin administration where needed.
“We checked Medication Administration Records (MARs) at both homes for the past month and found that medicines were being administered and signed for appropriately.” from the report
Respectful care
People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff used calm and understanding approaches and asked for consent before providing care.
“There was a warm and welcoming atmosphere in both homes at the time of the inspection.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's preferences, histories and mental health needs. They were reviewed monthly with people and updated when circumstances changed.
“Care plans included people's likes and dislikes and information about how they wanted their care to be delivered that ensured a tailored approach for each person.” from the report
Activities and community links
People had weekly activity timetables and were encouraged to take part in community activities. Transport was available for activities, day services and appointments.
“Each person had a weekly activity timetable that showed what activities people took part in throughout the week.” from the report
Quality checks
The home used regular audits and action plans to identify and follow up issues. Checks covered medicines, care plans, risks, staff arrangements and the environment.
“Every six months the organisations compliance team from head office completed an audit that covered all aspects of the homes including premises, care plans, medicines, staff recruitment and training.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and regularly update my relative's mental health needs, triggers and risks?
- 02How would you support my relative to take part in activities and maintain contact with family and friends?
- 03How are medicines, including any as-needed medicines, reviewed and monitored for each person?
- 04How would you involve my relative in writing and reviewing their care plan?
- 05How can my relative or family raise a complaint, and how would it be followed up?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and the report says the overall rating remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 March 2018 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 Rowan/Beech House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 December 2010.
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 Enfield
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 £1,260 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Over the time he spent with them he got to know our parents very well and became like part of the family, even joining in family celebrations.”
“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.