CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rowans
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Staff knew how to protect people from abuse, there were enough staff and medicines were given safely and on time. Inspectors found that an electric cupboard and a cupboard with hot pipes could be accessed, so risk management needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had detailed assessments and care plans, trained staff and support with food, drink and healthcare. The building had some clutter and needed improvements, including a replacement fence panel and a clearer patio area.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people warmly, respectfully and with kindness. They understood people's communication, backgrounds and needs, and supported them to take part in everyday activities.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and included people's communication methods, preferences, health and daily needs. Staff understood how people expressed themselves, and a complaints procedure was in place.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager used audits, consultation and feedback to monitor the service. Relatives and staff spoke positively about the management and leadership.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some safety and environmental improvements still needed.
This was a planned inspection on 11 April 2019. One inspector met people, observed care and reviewed care records, medicines, staff records and quality checks. They also spoke with six relatives, three staff and the company director.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were supported by staff who knew them very well, understood how they communicated and helped them take part in daily life and community activities.
Inspectors found some risks in the building. An electric cupboard and a cupboard containing hot pipes could be accessed, and some areas were cluttered. The home was asked to improve how these risks were managed. A notification about some liberty restrictions had also not always been sent to CQC, but this was submitted after the inspection.
The overall rating was unchanged from the previous Good rating in September 2016. Good means the inspectors found that legal requirements were met and that the service provided good-quality care at the time of this inspection.
Staff understand people well
Staff understood people's gestures, sounds, preferences and anxieties. This helped them provide individual support and reduce anxiety.
“People were cared for and supported by staff that understood their needs exceptionally well.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm, calm and positive interactions. Staff supported people's dignity, privacy, independence and involvement in daily activities.
“We observed staff interacting with people in a positive and caring way.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were stored, given and disposed of using safe procedures, and staff competencies were checked.
“There were enough staff available to meet people's care needs and people received their medication as prescribed and on time.” from the report
Personalised communication and activities
Care plans recorded individual communication needs, and staff used methods such as signs, sounds and pictures. People were supported to access local and wider community activities.
“The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance.” from the report
Good management oversight
The manager carried out regular audits, consulted people and relatives, and used feedback to identify improvements.
“The registered manager conducted regular audits and improvements were carried out when identified.” from the report
Accessible hazards
needs fixingInspectors could freely access an electric cupboard and a cupboard containing hot pipes. The manager said these would be investigated and secured, but inspectors recommended more effective risk management.
“Some improvements needed to be made to the environment to ensure it was safe.” from the report
Clutter and cleaning
minorSome areas were cluttered, the patio needed decluttering and one bathroom needed a deep clean. The manager said improvements were planned.
“Some areas of the service were cluttered and one of the bathrooms could benefit from having a deep clean.” from the report
Late regulatory notifications
needs fixingThe home had not always notified CQC when liberty restriction authorisations had been granted. The notifications were submitted after the inspection.
“When authorisations to deprive someone of their liberty had been granted, the registered manager had not always notified the commission of this.” from the report
- 01Have the electric cupboard and hot-pipe cupboard now been secured so people cannot access them?
- 02What changes have been made to clear clutter, improve the patio and deep-clean the bathroom?
- 03How do you now check that all required notifications about liberty restriction authorisations are sent to CQC on time?
- 04Are the same staff and manager still working at the home, and how do you make sure they understand each person's communication methods?
- 05How are relatives involved when care plans or risk assessments change?
This planned inspection looked at the premises and care provided, reviewed all five quality areas and included observations, records and discussions with relatives and staff. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 May 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, October 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a recommendation to improve how feedback leads to service improvements.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 9 September 2016. One inspector observed care, spoke with five relatives, four staff members and health and social care professionals, and checked five people's care records, medicines records, staff records and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines practice, personalised care plans, good support with health and communication, and kind care that respected people's dignity and choices.
The home supported eight people with learning disabilities. Most people could not tell inspectors verbally about their experiences, so inspectors relied on observation and feedback from relatives, staff and professionals. The last inspection was in April 2014, when the service was meeting all the standards inspected.
Positive risk support
Risks were managed in a way that protected people while still allowing choice, movement and control. Inspectors also saw work that reduced distress and the need for restrictive practices.
“Risk was managed safely but positively supporting people's rights to exercise choice and control.” from the report
Skilled and supported staff
Staff received induction, regular training, supervision and competency checks. Training included areas linked to people's changing needs, such as epilepsy, dementia and end of life care.
“A regular programme of training was provided with opportunities for specialist training relevant to meeting the needs of the people who used the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with patience, kindness and respect. Staff knew people's routines and communication methods and supported privacy and independence.
“We observed people being supported and saw that staff showed kindness and interacted with them in a positive way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's preferences, communication, routines, interests and support needs. Families and representatives were involved, and records were updated when needs changed.
“The care plans were written in a personalised way which means they were unique to that person.” from the report
Good health support
The home monitored people's health, nutrition and risks such as pressure ulcers and seizures. Staff worked with health professionals and made referrals when needed.
“People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing.” from the report
Feedback did not show improvements
minorThe provider received very positive feedback but could not show examples of changes made because of people's comments. Inspectors recommended using other ways to collect constructive feedback.
“We recommended that they consider other ways in which they could solicit feedback and develop the service to demonstrate their commitment to driving improvements.” from the report
Formal complaints may be difficult for residents
needs fixingAlthough an easy-read complaints procedure was available, the provider said people using the service could not understand it or formally complain through it. Staff relied on knowing people's body language and non-verbal cues.
“the people who used the service were not able to understand this and would be unable to formally complain using this process.” from the report
- 01How do you help each resident communicate a complaint or say that they are unhappy?
- 02What changes have you made as a result of feedback from residents or families?
- 03How are communication methods, routines and preferences kept up to date in each person's care plan?
- 04What specialist training do staff have for my relative's health and communication needs?
- 05How will you involve me in reviews and decisions about my relative's care?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five rated areas; inspectors observed care and reviewed five people's records, but most residents could not give verbal accounts of their experiences. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 October 2016 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 Rowans
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.