You are here

Archived: Rowley House Limited Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 11 April 2017

This inspection took place on 2 March 2017 and was unannounced. At our last inspection in October 2015 we had concerns that the service was not consistently safe, effective, responsive or well led. At this inspection we found that some improvements had been made, however we had concerns that the service was still not consistently safe or well led.

Rowley House provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 36 people. At the time of this inspection there were 30 people using the service.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. 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.

People's medicines were not always managed safely. The provider could not be sure that people had their medicines as medicine records did not correspond with the balance of stock.

The systems the provider had in place to monitor the management of medicines were not effective. The home's rating from the last inspection was not displayed in a way in which people could see it clearly.

People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse as staff knew what constituted abuse and who to report it to if they suspected abuse. The registered manager referred safeguarding concerns to the local authority for further investigation.

Risks of harm to people were assessed and action was taken to minimise the risk of further harm. Staff knew people's risks and how to keep them safe.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably trained staff to keep people safe. New staff were employed using safe recruitment procedures to ensure they were of good character and fit to work with people.

People were cared for by staff who were supported by the management team and trained to fulfil their roles.

The principles of The MCA 2005 and DoLS were being followed to ensure that people who lacked mental capacity were being supported to consent to their care at the service in their best interests.

People were encouraged to maintain a healthy diet. If people lost weight or they became unwell, professional health care advice was sought in a timely manner.

People were treated with dignity and respect and their right to privacy was upheld. People were able to make choices about their care and be as independent at they were able to be.

People received personalised care that met their individual needs and preferences. People knew how to complain if they had any concerns about their care.

People, their relatives and the staff liked and respected the registered manager and management team. Some improvements to the quality of the service had been made since the last inspection.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 11 April 2017

The service was not consistently safe.

People's medicines were not always managed safely.

Risks of harm to people were assessed and minimised.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably trained staff to meet people's needs. New staff had been employed using safe recruitment procedures.

People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse as staff and the management knew what to do if they suspected abuse.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 April 2017

The service was effective.

People were cared for by staff who were supported and trained to fulfil their roles effectively.

The principles of the MCA 2005 and DoLS were being followed which meant people who lacked mental capacity were being supported to consent to their care by the representatives in their best interests.

People were encouraged to maintain a healthy diet and they had access to health care professionals if they became unwell of their health care needs changed.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 April 2017

The service was caring.

People were treated with dignity and respect.

People's right to privacy was upheld.

People were offered choices about their care and their choices were respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 April 2017

The service was responsive.

People received care that was personalised and met their individual needs and preferences.

People knew how to complain and had confidence that their complaints would be handled appropriately.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 11 April 2017

The service was not consistently well led.

The quality monitoring systems in place were not always effective in ensuring safe care.

The latest CQC rating was not on display following the previous inspection.

People, their relatives and staff all felt the registered manager was supportive and approachable.