Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Rowan House Residential Home

Requires improvementpublished 31 August 2023, 3 years ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Requires improvement
Some risks were not identified, assessed or monitored. The report also found incomplete recruitment checks and a discrepancy between medicines held and medicines records, although immediate action was taken on several issues.
Effective?
Good
People received effective care from trained staff and were supported with health, nutrition and healthcare access. Some capacity assessments and care plan information were contradictory and were amended after feedback.
Caring?
Good
This key question was not given a new rating in this inspection. People and relatives described staff as kind, friendly and respectful.
Responsive?
Good
This key question was not given a new rating in this inspection. Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences and communication needs, and were reviewed regularly.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
Management systems were in place but had not identified important risks and gaps in care plan information before the inspection. The provider was asked to improve its oversight and send an action plan.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, August 2023

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but some risks and management checks were not reliable.

Inspectors visited without notice on 25, 26 and 27 July 2023. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a professional, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management records. The inspection covered both the residential home and the domiciliary care agency.

People generally said they felt safe and were treated kindly. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable training, safe infection control and good support with health, food and consent. The atmosphere in the home was warm and friendly.

However, some risks for agency users had not been identified or properly recorded. This included unmonitored use of one person's bank card and PIN, and missing guidance for another person's care. In the home, some medicines did not match the recorded amounts. Recruitment checks were also not always complete.

The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection in 2017 to Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Effective remained Good. The report says the provider must send an action plan, and CQC will monitor progress.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and respectful staff

    People and relatives spoke positively about the staff. Inspectors saw people looking relaxed, happy and comfortable, with staff spending time talking to them.

    “People looked relaxed, happy, and comfortable with the staff supporting them.” from the report
  • Enough staff

    Staffing levels were sufficient in both the home and the agency. People said visits were usually on time and lasted for the agreed length of time.

    “There were sufficient numbers of staff employed to cover the requirements of the rotas and meet people's specific needs.” from the report
  • Training and support

    New staff received induction and shadowing before working alone. Training was monitored and staff received regular support and checks.

    “New staff received an induction which included training and a period of working alongside a more experienced staff member before they started working on their own.” from the report
  • Good health support

    Staff recognised changes in people's health and contacted suitable professionals. People were supported with food, drinks and dietary needs.

    “People were supported to maintain good health and were referred to appropriate healthcare professionals as required.” from the report
  • Safe home environment

    In the residential home, equipment, utilities and fire arrangements were checked. Risk assessments were detailed and up to date for residents.

    “Risk assessments were detailed and up to date, which meant staff had guidance in how to manage people's care safely.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Unmonitored financial transactions

    serious

    For one agency user, staff used their bank card and PIN to buy shopping. There were no checks or audits of these transactions until action was taken after the inspection.

    “There were no checks, monitoring or audits of these transactions.” from the report
  • Important risks missing from agency care plans

    serious

    One agency user's care plan did not explain how staff should manage all risks linked to their physical care and social support. New risk assessments and guidance were added during the inspection.

    “Another person's care plan did not contain sufficient guidance and direction for staff to manage all the risks related to their physical care and social support.” from the report
  • Medicines records did not match

    needs fixing

    In the home, some medicines did not match the recorded amounts. The manager carried out an audit and introduced extra checks after the inspection.

    “However, on the day of the inspection, we found that some medicines did not match with the amount held.” from the report
  • Recruitment checks were incomplete

    needs fixing

    Some agency staff files did not show a reference from the last care role, or clear checks of employment dates. The manager acted during the inspection and CQC recommended further guidance.

    “Recruitment processes were not always robust.” from the report
  • Management audits missed problems

    serious

    Audits existed but had not found the missing risk information and other care plan concerns before inspectors raised them. This was the reason for the Regulation 17 breach.

    “However, concerns around the management of risks and insufficient, inaccurate information, guidance and direction found in some care plans had not been identified prior to this inspection.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What checks are now in place when staff use a person's bank card or PIN, and how are these checks recorded and audited?
  2. 02How do you make sure every person's care plan contains clear, current guidance about their specific health and social care risks?
  3. 03What extra medicines audits were introduced after inspectors found that some medicines did not match the recorded amounts?
  4. 04How do you now check references, employment dates and previous care work before new staff start?
  5. 05How are capacity assessments and best-interest decisions checked so that the records are consistent and accurate?

This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led across the residential home and domiciliary agency; Caring and Responsive were not given new ratings, and ratings for uninspected questions carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 August 2023 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, September 2017

Rowan House Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but neither manager was yet registered with CQC.

This was a comprehensive inspection of both the care home and the agency. The care home visit was unannounced. The agency visit was announced. Inspectors spoke with people using the services, relatives, staff and a health professional. They observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.

The inspectors found that earlier problems had been addressed and that the improvements had been maintained. Medicines, staffing, safeguarding, risk assessments, cleanliness and recruitment were generally managed safely. People received effective care, had access to health professionals and were supported with food, drink and their legal rights.

People were treated with kindness and respect. Care plans were personalised and activities were available. The managers and provider had systems to monitor quality and respond to feedback. The overall rating was Good, and each of the five questions was rated Good, although the report said the service was not fully well-led because neither manager was registered with the Commission at the time.

What inspectors praised
  • Earlier improvements maintained

    The provider had acted on problems found in 2016. Inspectors found that the improvements were still in place during this inspection.

    “At this inspection we found these improvements had been maintained.” from the report
  • Kind and respectful care

    People were treated with compassion and their privacy and dignity were respected. Staff knew people's preferences and responded to emotional needs.

    “Staff were observed supporting people with patience and kindness.” from the report
  • Personalised support

    Care records included people's needs, preferences, histories and relationships. Staff reviewed plans when people's needs changed.

    “People's care records were of a good standard, were detailed and recorded people's preferences.” from the report
  • Strong safety arrangements

    Inspectors found appropriate safeguarding, recruitment, risk assessment, staffing, infection control and medicines arrangements in place.

    “People were protected by safe recruitment procedures.” from the report
  • Responsive management

    Managers were available and staff felt able to raise concerns. Audits, feedback and incident reviews were used to identify learning and improvements.

    “There was an effective quality assurance system in place to drive improvements within the service.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Managers not yet registered

    needs fixing

    Neither the residential manager nor the agency manager was registered with the Commission at the time of the inspection. An application had been received and the report describes exceptional circumstances.

    “Though neither manager was currently registered with the Commission there were exceptional circumstance which we have been made aware of and recognise” from the report
  • One missed medicine dose

    serious

    One person missed a dose of a medicine needing close monitoring after the medicine ran out. The manager discussed this with staff and put a new process in place.

    “However there had been one occasion when this medicine had run out and the person had missed a dose.” from the report
  • Some agency staff still needed MCA training

    needs fixing

    At the agency, some staff had not completed Mental Capacity Act training. Training was planned.

    “Some staff had not yet completed training in the Mental Capacity Act, however training was planned.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Has the manager's application to register with the Commission been completed, and who is responsible for the service while this is pending?
  2. 02What new process was introduced after a person missed a dose of a closely monitored medicine, and how is it checked now?
  3. 03How will the agency ensure all staff complete Mental Capacity Act training?
  4. 04How are care plans and risk assessments reviewed when a person's health or needs change?
  5. 05How are feedback, complaints, accidents and safeguarding concerns recorded and used to improve care?

This was a comprehensive inspection of both services, with the care home inspected unannounced on 29 and 30 August and the agency inspected with 48 hours' notice on 31 August and 1 September. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 September 2017 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Rowan House Residential Home

5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.

  1. August 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Rowan House Residential Home →

  2. September 2017Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Rowan House Residential Home →

  3. January 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. September 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. January 2016Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. October 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. August 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. January 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. February 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. April 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  11. January 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

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”
Karen S., about Nicola H.
See live-in carers near CornwallProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.