You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 12 April 2016

This inspection took place on 25 & 27 January 2016 and was unannounced. Rowan House provides accommodation and care for up to 16 older people with mental health needs or people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 15 people living in the home.

The home had a registered manager who was also the registered provider. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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 felt safe. People and their families felt there were enough staff. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to identify, prevent and report abuse. People were supported to receive their medicines safely from suitably trained staff and were stored, administered and audited effectively. Relevant recruitment checks were conducted before staff started working at Rowan House to make sure staff were of good character and had the necessary skills.

Rooms were personalised and people told us the home was clean. However, floor coverings in bathrooms were worn and in need of replacement.

Activities were planned daily. However, people told us there was not much to do. Staff told us that activities could sometimes be cancelled due to people requiring personal care, which could leave the service short staffed at times and as a result of this activities were sometimes cancelled.

Staff sought consent from people before providing care or support. However, the ability of people to make decisions was not always documented in line with legal requirements to ensure their rights were protected and their liberty was not restricted unlawfully.

The risks to people were minimized through risk assessments which provided staff with clear guidelines to follow. Staff were aware of how to keep people safe. Staff were supported and received regular one to one sessions of supervisions to discuss areas of development. Staff completed a wide range of training which they felt supported them in their job role. New staff completed an induction period before being permitted to work unsupervised.

People received varied and nutritious meals including a choice of fresh food and drinks. Staff were aware of people’s dislikes and offered alternatives if people did not want the meal of the day. People were able to access healthcare services.

People were cared for with kindness, compassion and sensitivity. We observed positive interactions between people and staff. Care plans provided comprehensive information about how people wished to receive care and support. This helped ensure people received personalised care in a way that met their individual needs.

People were supported and encouraged to make choices and had access to a range of activities, when there were enough staff. ‘Resident meetings’ and surveys allowed people to provide feedback, which was used to improve the service.

People liked living at the home and felt it was well-led. There was an open and transparent culture. Staff felt the manager was approachable and felt their ideas were listened to. The manager used a series of audits to monitor the quality of the service.

A complaints procedure was in place. There were appropriate management arrangements in place and staff felt supported.

Inspection areas



Updated 12 April 2016

The service was safe.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and recruiting practices were safe.

Staff knew how to identify, prevent and report abuse and medicines were managed safely.

The home was clean and hygienic.



Updated 12 April 2016

The service was effective.

Staff sought consent before providing care. However this was not always documented in line with legal requirements.

People received sufficient food and drink and could choose what they wanted to eat.

Staff received appropriate training, supervision and appraisal. People were supported to access health professionals and treatments.



Updated 12 April 2016

The service was caring.

People and their families felt staff treated them with kindness and compassion.

People were involved in their care and were encouraged to remain as independent as possible. Their dignity and privacy was protected at all times.


Requires improvement

Updated 12 April 2016

The service was not always responsive.

People seemed to have a lack of activities provided for them. This was due to not always having sufficient staff for activities to take place.

People received personalised care from staff who were able to meet their needs. Care plans provided comprehensive information and were reviewed monthly.

An effective complaints procedure was in place and concerns were listened to.



Updated 12 April 2016

The service was well led.

There was an open and transparent culture in the home.

Staff spoke highly of the manager, who was approachable and supportive.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided.