CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Rowan Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People's risks were assessed, with guidance for staff in care plans. Inspectors found medicines were administered, stored and recorded safely, and there were enough staff to support people promptly.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health, dietary, communication and other needs were assessed and supported. Staff had training and worked with health professionals when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives spoke positively about staff, who were described as kind, caring and respectful. People were supported to make choices and their privacy, dignity and independence were protected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The detailed findings say this had improved to Outstanding. Inspectors found exceptionally personalised support, meaningful activities, strong family involvement and imaginative ways to help people take part in community life.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had audits, resident meetings and systems for learning from incidents. Inspectors found that previous governance problems had been addressed, although a medicines audit had not checked every relevant area.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and highly personalised care, with a medicines-audit gap corrected during inspection.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 06 November 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, effective, caring and well-led were rated Good. In the detailed findings, responsive care was described as Outstanding. Inspectors found staff were kind and respectful, risks and medicines were managed safely, and people received care based on their individual needs and interests.
The previous inspection had rated the home Requires Improvement, with several legal breaches. Inspectors found that improvements had been made and that the home was no longer in breach of regulations. They found one medicines audit had missed some checks, but the manager acted immediately to change the audit process.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives consistently spoke highly of the staff. Inspectors observed warm, positive interactions and found that staff knew people's individual needs.
“People spoke highly of the care and support provided by staff. Staff were described as kind, caring and respectful.” from the report
Highly personalised care
Care plans included people's histories, preferences, religious needs and health requirements. Staff used this information to adapt support in practical ways.
“The staff were responsive to people's needs and wishes and provided exceptional person-centred care.” from the report
Meaningful activities
The home supported people to continue old interests and try new experiences, including swimming, cycling, exercise, outings and community activities.
“People were supported exceptionally well by staff to follow their individual interests.” from the report
People had a say
Residents helped run meetings, took part in recruitment and held ambassador roles. Their suggestions led to changes in areas such as menus and bed linen.
“The meetings were run by one of the people living at the home.” from the report
Improvements since the last inspection
The home had addressed the previous inspection's concerns about medicines, risk assessments and quality monitoring. It was no longer in breach of the regulations.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Medicines audit did not cover everything
needs fixingInspectors found that a medicines audit had missed some parts of people's medicines administration guidance. The manager acted immediately and changed the audit process, but this is worth checking when visiting.
“However, we saw a couple of areas where the audit had not reviewed some aspects of people's medicines administration guidance.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to the medicines audit after inspectors found that some medicines administration guidance had not been checked?
- 02How is the move to the electronic care planning system progressing across all four units?
- 03How do you decide staffing numbers when people's needs change?
- 04How would you support my relative to continue their existing interests and take part in activities?
- 05How are relatives involved in care plan reviews and decisions about end of life care?
This was an unannounced planned inspection based on the previous rating and covered the home's care, premises, staff, records and management across all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 December 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, November 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but medicines, risk management and quality checks were not reliable enough.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 and 7 August 2018. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicine records, recruitment files and quality checks.
The home had improved since May 2017. Effective, caring and responsive care were rated Good. People said staff were kind, treated them with respect and supported their choices, activities and personal preferences.
However, inspectors found that some medicines were late, missing or not recorded properly. Some care plans and risk instructions were not followed. The home's checks did not always find problems or ensure they were fixed quickly.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement. The home was in continued breach of Regulation 12 and Regulation 17. A warning notice was issued for Regulation 17.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors observed patient and compassionate support, including help with choices and eating independently.
“People and relatives told us the staff were kind and they were treated with respect.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff considered people's preferences, including who supported them and their religious and gender-related needs. Care plans were in place for people approaching the end of life.
“This meant people were supported in a way that catered for their preferences and care was personalised.” from the report
Activities and social contact
People were offered varied activities, trips and opportunities to engage with staff and outside organisations.
“People were supported to engage in hobbies and activities.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found sufficient staff and appropriate pre-employment checks. People said staff usually responded quickly when they used their buzzer.
“There were sufficient numbers of safely recruited staff to support people.” from the report
Some risks and care instructions were not followed
seriousInspectors found that advice about a PEG tube was not being followed, an air mattress was on the wrong setting and some safety checks were not consistently recorded.
“Risks to people were not always assessed, planned for and managed appropriately.” from the report
Quality checks did not find problems
seriousThe home's audits missed issues with medicines, care plans, supplements and health monitoring. Problems were not always acted on promptly or shown to have been fully resolved.
“Quality assurance systems in place did not always identify areas for improvement and timely action to remedy concerns was not always taken.” from the report
Best-interest decisions needed better records
needs fixingSome decisions made for people who could not make them independently were not fully documented. This made it unclear who was involved and how the decisions were reached.
“We recommend evidence of best interest decisions be recorded and reviewed in line with guidance.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure time-specific medicines are given on time and any missed or late doses are reported and investigated?
- 02How do you check that PEG care, air mattress settings and other individual risk plans are followed on every shift?
- 03What changes have been made to quality audits since the inspection, and how do you know they are finding problems promptly?
- 04How are best-interest decisions now recorded, including who was involved and why the decision was made?
- 05How do you make sure prescribed creams and nutritional supplements are available, given and recorded consistently?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including the accommodation and care provided; inspectors reviewed five care plans, medicine records for nine people and the home's management checks. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 November 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 Court Care Home
5 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 November 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Staffordshire
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 £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.