You are here

Rowan Court Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 26 February 2020

About the service

Rowan Court is a residential care home providing personal care to 15 people with a learning disability, physical disability or sensory impairment. At the time of the inspection 15 people lived at the service. The accommodation is provided in one adapted building with bedrooms across three floors.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

All risks to people were not managed safely. The service was not always responsive when concerns were identified and failed to improve care quality in a timely manner. We were notified of a serious injury prior to the inspection. In response to this concern, we found the provider did not take enough immediate action to improve care quality across the service. The provider had failed to manage all risks to people safely and done all that is reasonably practicable to mitigate those risks.

The service had poor audit trails and audit systems were not robust. Governance systems failed to pick upon the issues we found during the inspection. Medicine audit tools were not robust enough to evidence what action had been taken following findings. Some actions on the wheelchair audits had not been followed up until this was highlighted to the registered manager during the inspection. The provider had not operated robust systems and processes to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service. They had not maintained accurate and complete records.

Relatives told us people living at the service were safe. Staff had a good understanding of how to safeguard people from abuse. People's medicines were managed safely. We observed people receiving medicines in line with their care plan. Person-centred care was promoted, and relatives told us staff knew people well and responded to their needs in a person-centred way .

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. Holistic assessments and care plans had been completed which reflected the person’s needs, wishes and preferences. Staff knew people's preferences, likes and dislikes. They provided support in line with legislation, standards and guidance to achieve effective outcomes. People told us staff were kind and sensitive. A relative added, “The carers are wonderful, very professional and caring.”

Complaints were investigated and responded to. We found the service had responded to formal complaints in line with the provider’s policy. Relatives told us, “[Names of registered manager] listens to you and makes things happen,” and, “They [staff] take everything very seriously if you raise anything.”

Staff and relatives were positive about the management team and the changes the registered had made to the service. Staff we spoke with felt valued and supported by the registered manager. Staff told us, “[Name of registered manager] is incredible. They are so supportive, but you need to meet their expectations as well. They are happy to help and get involved.”

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 17 January 2019)

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 26 February 2020

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 26 February 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 26 February 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 26 February 2020

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 26 February 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.