CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rowan House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm and there were enough staff. However, environmental risks and medicine storage temperatures were not always monitored properly, although the provider said these issues would be addressed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and staff were trained and supported. Not everyone had a healthcare action plan or health passport.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw warm, respectful care. People were supported to make choices, express their views and develop their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People were supported to follow their interests, try new activities and build relationships. Information was provided in ways people could understand.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Managers and staff provided good day-to-day support, but quality assurance systems did not consistently identify risks, missing care plans or learning from incidents and audits.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but the home’s leadership and quality checks needed improvement.
This was the first inspection since the home registered. Inspectors visited on 27 May 2022. They spoke with one resident, two relatives and six staff, observed care, checked care and medicines records, reviewed staff files and walked around the building.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough skilled staff, kind care, good support for choice and independence, and activities that helped people take part in their local community.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The home had quality checks, but these did not always identify risks or missing care information. Inspectors recommended that the provider improve these systems.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions, take part in activities and work towards greater independence. Staff adapted support to people's abilities and goals.
“Staff supported people to have the maximum possible choice, control and independence.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed warmth and compassion. Staff protected people's privacy and dignity and understood how people communicated.
“We observed respect, warmth and compassion from staff when interacting with people.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to try new activities, pursue interests and take part in their local community. Activities were adapted to promote inclusion.
“The service routinely sought out new skills and activities for people to try” from the report
Staffing and support
There were enough staff to provide individualised support, including support for activities and outings. Recruitment checks had been completed safely.
“The service had enough staff to support people in an individualised way.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingThe home's audits did not always identify risks, missing care plans or missing health information. The provider was asked to review its quality assurance systems.
“The provider had quality assurance systems in place however these were not always effective in identifying concerns.” from the report
Medicine temperature monitoring
needs fixingMedicines were stored securely, but the temperature was not monitored properly. The provider gave assurances that this would be addressed.
“Medicines were stored securely but the temperature at which medicines were kept was not monitored properly.” from the report
Environmental risk checks
needs fixingSome parts of the environment had not been properly checked for risk. Inspectors raised this during the visit and the provider acted quickly.
“Aspects of the environment had not been effectively monitored for risk.” from the report
Missing health information
needs fixingNot everyone had a healthcare action plan or health passport. These documents help healthcare professionals understand how to support a person.
“We found not all people in the service had a healthcare action plan or health passport.” from the report
End-of-life planning
minorNo one was receiving end-of-life care at the visit, but care plans for people's end-of-life preferences were not in place. Staff had not received end-of-life care training.
“Care plans outlining people's preferences for end of life care were not in place.” from the report
- 01What environmental risks were identified, and how do you now check that they remain controlled?
- 02How do you monitor the temperature where medicines are stored, and can you show us the records?
- 03Does every resident now have a healthcare action plan and health passport?
- 04How are residents' end-of-life preferences recorded, and have staff received relevant training?
- 05How do you now collect formal feedback from residents and relatives and share learning from audits and incidents with staff?
This was the first inspection of the newly registered home and covered all five CQC questions, including care, medicines, infection control, records, staff files and the building. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 July 2022 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 House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- July 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 December 2020.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.