You are here

Archived: The Rowans - Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 April 2017

This inspection took place on 23 March 2017 and was unannounced. At the last comprehensive inspection of the service in August 2015 we rated the home as Requires Improvement due to breaches in Regulation 11: Need for consent, Regulation 15: Safety and suitability of the premises and Regulation 17: Good governance. We rated Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led as Requires Improvement, and Caring as Good. An action plan was submitted by the home to tell us how they would improve these areas so they were no longer in breach of regulation.

At this inspection we found that improvements had been made to the premises, although some re-decoration was still outstanding. Care plans recorded people’s ability to consent to their care and there were effective quality monitoring systems in place.

The home is registered to provide accommodation and care for up to 53 older people, including people who are living with dementia. On the day of the inspection there were 48 people living at the home, either within the ‘residential’ or ‘dementia’ areas of the home. The home is situated in Kirkella, a village in the East Riding of Yorkshire but also close to the city of Kingston upon Hull. The premises are on one level and there is easy access into the premises.

The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection there was a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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 were protected from the risk of harm or abuse because there were effective systems in place to manage any safeguarding concerns. Staff were trained in safeguarding adults from abuse and understood their responsibilities in respect of protecting people from the risk of harm.

There was evidence that the registered provider was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had received training on these topics and understood their responsibilities.

Care plans were a good reflection of people’s individual needs and how these should be met by staff.

There were recruitment and selection policies in place and these had been followed to ensure that only people considered suitable to work with vulnerable people had been employed. On the day of the inspection we saw that there were sufficient numbers of staff employed to meet people's individual needs, although we felt that the deployment of staff to ensure they were always visible could be improved.

Staff told us they received the training they needed to carry out their roles effectively and confirmed that they received induction training when they were new in post. Staff told us that they were well supported by the registered manager.

Senior staff had received appropriate training on the administration of medication. We checked medication systems and saw that medicines were stored, recorded and administered safely.

People who lived at the home told us that staff were caring and that they respected people's privacy and dignity. We saw that there were positive relationships between people who lived at the home and staff, and that staff had a good understanding of people's individual care and support needs.

A variety of activities were provided and people were encouraged to take part. People's family and friends were made welcome at the home.

People told us that they were satisfied with the food provided. We saw that people's nutritional needs had been assessed and individual food and drink requirements were met.

The registered manager was aware of how to use signage, decoration and prompts to assist people in finding their way around th

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 29 April 2017

The service was safe.

Staff had received training on safeguarding adults from abuse and understood their responsibility to report any incidents of abuse.

Staff had been recruited following the home's policies and procedures and there were sufficient numbers of staff employed to ensure people received safe and effective support.

Staff adhered to the home's medication policies and procedures and this meant people who lived at the home received the right medication at the right time.

Effective

Good

Updated 29 April 2017

The service was effective.

Staff completed training that gave them the skills and knowledge required to carry out their roles effectively.

People's nutritional needs were assessed and we saw that meals were prepared to meet people's individual dietary requirements.

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were being followed. People's physical and mental health care needs had been met.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 April 2017

The service was caring.

We observed positive relationships between people who lived at the home and staff.

People's individual care and support needs were understood by staff, and people were encouraged to be as independent as possible, with support from staff.

We saw that people's privacy and dignity was respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 April 2017

The service was responsive to people�s needs.

People's care plans recorded information about their support needs and how these should be met by staff. Care provided was centred on the individual person.

Activities were provided and visitors were made welcome at the home.

There was a complaints procedure in place and people told us they were confident any complaints would be listened to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 29 April 2017

The service was well-led.

There was a registered manager in post. They had submitted notifications as required by legislation.

Staff told us that they were well supported by the registered manager and senior managers within the organisation.

Audits were being carried out to monitor the effectiveness of the service. There were opportunities for people who lived at the home and other people involved in their care to give feedback about the service provided.