CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Rowsley House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, robust recruitment checks, safe medicines management and regular safety checks. One action from a water systems check had not yet started.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had access to health professionals and staff had suitable training and support. The home was working within the Mental Capacity Act, but some applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were still awaiting local authority approval.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. People and relatives said they were happy with the care and relationships at the home.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support plans were person-centred, regularly reviewed and available in accessible formats. Activities were meaningful, although not all end of life information had yet been fully recorded.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and staff worked well together, and quality checks, meetings and feedback systems were in place. Relatives had opportunities to share their views, including through regular coffee mornings.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and person-centred support, with a few records and follow-up actions still being completed.
This was a comprehensive inspection on 13 and 14 November 2018. The first day was unannounced. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff, the manager and health and social care professionals. They also reviewed care records, staff files, medicines records and other records about how the home was run.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training, good relationships and care plans that reflected people's needs and choices.
Inspectors noted some minor work still in progress. One action from a water systems check had not started, some applications for legal safeguards were awaiting approval, and not all end of life information was complete. These issues did not change the overall Good rating.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely and without rushing. Medicines were checked at the end of each shift and by the manager each week.
“There was sufficient staff deployed to support people safely.” from the report
Kind, respectful relationships
People appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff. Staff supported people's dignity, privacy, independence and links with family and friends.
“Staff's approach was very caring and empathetic, and we saw that they carried out their duties in a friendly yet professional way.” from the report
Person-centred activities
People took part in activities that matched their interests and helped them work towards personal goals. Support plans included individual communication and equality needs.
“Activities were incorporated into people's lives in a way that was natural and meaningful.” from the report
Positive management and oversight
The home had quality checks, staff meetings and opportunities for people and relatives to give feedback. Staff said they felt supported and listened to.
“There were adequate systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service.” from the report
Water systems action not started
minorInspectors found that one action recommended after a water systems check had not yet begun. They described this as a minor concern and said good practice was to complete actions in line with recommendations.
“We noted one of the actions from the water systems check had not yet been started.” from the report
Some legal safeguard approvals pending
needs fixingThe manager had applied for some Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations, but was still waiting for local authority approval at the time of inspection.
“However, we acknowledged the registered manager was still awaiting the approval from the respective local authorities for some of these applications.” from the report
End of life information incomplete
minorEnd of life wishes were discussed with people and families, but this work was still continuing. Not all support plans contained complete information.
“This was an ongoing piece of work so not all support plans contained complete information.” from the report
- 01What happened to the outstanding action from the water systems check, and has it now been completed?
- 02Which Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications were awaiting approval, and what is their current status?
- 03How do you record and review each person's end of life wishes?
- 04How are people involved in choosing activities, meals and community events?
- 05How will my relative and family be involved in reviewing the support plan?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and the overall Good rating remained unchanged from January 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 January 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.
Every inspection of Rowsley House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 November 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Manchester
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. 89 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.