• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Rowan Lodge

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

36 Keble Close, Northolt, Middlesex, UB5 4QE (020) 8423 9095

Provided and run by:
Ramnarain Sham

All Inspections

21 August 2017

During a routine inspection

We undertook an unannounced inspection of Rowan Lodge on 21 August 2017. The service was last inspected on 8 and 9 December 2015 when we found three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 because medicines were not managed safely, recruitment procedures were not being followed robustly and the service was not being monitored so shortfalls were not being identified and addressed. The provider sent us an action plan on 2 February 2016 telling us about the improvements they planned to make by 31 March 2016. At this inspection, we found that improvements had been made.

Rowan Lodge Care Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to three people with mental health needs. There were three people using the service at the time of our inspection.

The provider is registered as an individual and as such is not required to have a registered manager in place. The provider runs and manages the service with the assistance of an operations manager who is a family member. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There were activities provided at the service, however these did not always meet the needs of people.

We have made a recommendation in relation to the provision of activities.

People's individual needs had been assessed and recorded but not all care plans were regularly reviewed. Monitoring charts and records were not always updated.

Incidents and accidents were acted upon appropriately. However, records of these were not always fully completed and did not always include a management review and an action plan about how to mitigate the risk of reoccurrence.

Recruitment checks were in place to obtain information about new staff before they supported people unsupervised.

There were systems in place to ensure that people received their medicines safely and the staff had received training in the management of medicines.

There were procedures for safeguarding adults and the staff were aware of these. Staff knew how to respond to any medical emergencies or significant changes in a person's wellbeing.

Feedback from people and stakeholders was positive. People we spoke with said that they were happy with the level of care they were receiving from the service. We saw that people’s needs were met by caring and respectful staff.

People's needs were assessed and support plans were developed from the assessments. People had taken part in the planning of their care and there were regular reviews.

The manager was aware of their responsibilities in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

The service employed enough staff to meet people's needs safely and had contingency plans in place in the event of staff absence. However there was not always enough time for staff on duty to provide meaningful activities for people who used the service.

People's health and nutritional needs had been assessed, recorded and were being monitored.

New staff received an induction and shadowing period before delivering care and support to people. They received the training and support they needed to care for people.

There was a complaints procedure in place which the provider followed. People felt confident that if they raised a complaint, they would be listened to and their concerns addressed.

There were systems in place to monitor and assess the quality and effectiveness of the service, and the provider ensured that areas for improvement were identified and addressed.

People and staff told us that the management team was approachable and supportive. People and staff were supported to raise concerns and make suggestions about where improvements could be made.

8 and 9 December 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 8 and 9 December 2015 and the first day was unannounced. The last inspection took place on 6 June 2014 and the provider was compliant with the regulations we checked.

Rowan Lodge Care Home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to three older people. At the time of the inspection the service had no vacancies. The provider is registered as an Individual and as such is not required to have a registered manager in place. The provider runs and manages the service.

Medicines requiring refrigeration storage were not being stored safely and we identified one discrepancy in a stock of medicines which could place people at risk of not receiving their medicines accurately.

Recruitment procedures were not being followed robustly which could place people at risk.

The service was not being monitored so shortfalls were not being identified and addressed.

People who used the service said they were happy with the care and support they received and we also received positive feedback from the stakeholders we contacted.

Staff understood safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures and were clear about the process to follow to report concerns. Complaints procedures were in place and people confirmed they would be happy to raise any concerns they might have.

Staff had received training and understood how to identify and meet people’s individual needs and choices. Staff received supervision so their training and development needs were identified and staff meetings took place so staff could express their views. The service was being staffed to meet people’s needs.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). DoLS are in place to ensure that people’s freedom is not unduly restricted.

Risk assessments were in place and identified the risks to each person and the action to be taken to minimise them. Care records reflected people’s needs and interests and were kept up to date.

Staff monitored people’s health and referred them for input from healthcare professionals appropriately so their healthcare needs were being met.

People were happy with the food provision at the service and meals reflected people’s personal preferences. Activities were arranged based on people’s interests and people were encouraged to take part and their wishes were respected.

Staff supported people in a gentle and friendly manner, treating them with dignity and respect.

People were given the opportunity to express their views about the service so action could be taken to address any issues raised.

We found three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

6 June 2014

During a routine inspection

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. We contacted the registered manager the day before the inspection to ensure we visited at a time when people would be available to speak with us at the service.

We considered all the evidence we gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask:

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on speaking with people who used the service, speaking with relatives and other social care professionals, speaking with staff who supported them, observation and looking at records.

Is the service safe?

People had been cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment at the home had been maintained and serviced regularly. We found there were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the people living at the home and a member of the management team was available on call in case of emergencies.

We spoke with two people who used the service. They told us they could speak to any member of staff if they had any worries or concerns. One person who used the service told us 'If I had worries about them, I would tell you right now.'

There was a system in place to audit medicines and a staff member demonstrated to us how medicines were accounted for. We checked and the audit count was correct at the time of our inspection.

We looked at the employment records of two staff members. Records showed that the appropriate checks had been undertaken to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff personnel records showed that staff either had the experience, skills and knowledge to carry out their role or had undertaken further training when they began work. This meant that staff employed to work at the home were suitable and had the skills and experience needed to support people living in the home.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one. At the time of our inspection no applications had been made.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with one relative of people used the service. They told us 'I have no complaints with the way X is looked after, I think X is well looked after by the staff.'

One person who used the service told us 'It's ok here, I like the staff they care about me.'

Staff on duty knew the people they cared for well, including their life history and personal preferences. During our visit we saw frequent and friendly interactions between people who used the service and the staff on duty who were supporting them.

Is the service effective?

We saw that people, their families and their health and social care professionals were involved in making decisions people's care and treatment. Their needs were assessed and care was delivered in line with their individual care plan.

People who used the service were treated as individuals and took part in community activities they liked to be involved in. One person told us, "I love going to the day centre, I attend twice a week'. Another person said 'We have music and singing each week, I enjoy that, the staff arrange it.' The manager and staff told us they encouraged people to do whatever they could for themselves and promoted their independence.

Is the service responsive?

People's health and social care needs were assessed before they moved into the home and reviewed regularly and whenever there was a change in needs.

People were confident they would receive the support they needed quickly should their health needs change. This was demonstrated by the manager and staff on the day of our visit, when they were supporting a person who was unwell and had arranged promptly for this person to be assessed and treated by the GP.

Is the service well led?

There were systems in place to ensure that people were happy with the service they received and to ensure their health and safety was protected.

A relative we spoke with told us 'The manager has always said if there are any problems ring me.' The same relative also told us they had confidence that if they raised any serious issues with the owner, these would be dealt with straight away.

We saw the manager, who had been in post since October 2013, was introducing a number of initiatives to improve services and outcomes for people who use the service.

29 April 2013

During a routine inspection

During our visit on 10 November 2012 we found that the provider was failing to ensure that staff were appropriately trained. Following our visit we asked the provider for an action plan detailing how improvements would be made. The provider sent us their action plan on 10 December 2012. We carried out this inspection to make sure improvements had been made and check that other standards were being met.

We spoke with two people using the service and they told us they were very happy with the care they received. People's comments included 'I like my room, it's comfortable and I have all my things' and 'it's not easy to get to church but a visitor comes in to talk and pray with us.'

People had up to date care plans and the care and support they received was recorded daily. Appropriate risk assessments were in place and reviewed regularly.

The service offered a good standard of accommodation and all areas used by people using the service were well furnished and decorated. People's bedrooms were comfortable and personalised.

The manager told us that staff had completed their induction and mandatory training, although some certificates were not available for inspection.

People using the service told us there was a procedure for managing complaints but both people said this had never been necessary.

10 November 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with all three people who use the service. Most people told us they were happy living in the home. Their comments included 'the staff are good, they look after us', 'I go out with the staff, I can't go out on my own now' and 'I see the doctor here when I need to'. One person had recently moved into the home and we saw that staff were supporting them to settle in and understand the reasons for their move. Although people told us they were happy and we saw that they were well supported, people's needs may not always be fully met because one new member of staff had not completed key training in some aspects of their role.