Archived: Rowlandson House

Updated 9 September 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

We undertook an unannounced focused inspection of Rowlandson House on 18 June 2015. This inspection was to check that improvements had been made to meet a legal requirement relating to premises shortfalls. We inspected the service against one of the five questions we ask about services: Is the service safe?

The inspection was undertaken by an adult social care inspector. During the inspection we spoke with the operations manager, a senior care worker and looked around the building.

Updated 9 September 2015

Rowlandson House provides personal care and accommodation for up to 27 older people including people living with dementia. The accommodation is over three floors which are accessible by a passenger lift and stairs. The home is located near to the city centre of Sunderland. There were 12 people using the service when we visited.

This inspection took place on 11 December 2014 and was unannounced which meant the provider and staff did not know we were coming.

The last inspection of this home was carried out on 30 December 2013. The service met the regulations we inspected against at that time.

The home had a registered manager. 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.

Some parts of the premises were not fully safe. Window-opening restrictors were not suitable because they could be removed from the window frame. A towel rail had a very hot surface temperature which could cause a scalding risk to people if they touched it by mistake. A window in one lounge did not fit into the frame so there was a significant draught in this room. The medicines storage room had a very poor odour, which would not affect people but could affect the staff members who used it. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

People were positive about the service they received. People felt safe and comfortable with staff. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and to spend time with them. The provider and registered manager made sure only suitable staff were employed who had been checked and vetted. Some people had been involved in the interviews of new staff so they felt included in decisions about the home.

Staff were clear about how to recognise and report any suspicions of abuse. Staff told us they were confident that any concerns would be listened to and investigated to make sure people were protected. Potential risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and managed. People could manage their own medicines if they were able to do so; otherwise staff managed these in a safe way for people.

People felt staff were “very good” at their jobs and they felt well cared for in the home. Staff received the training and support they needed to be competent in their roles. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for people who lacked capacity to make a decision and deprivation of liberty safeguards to make sure they were not restricted unnecessarily. People’s safety was protected without compromising their rights to lead an independent lifestyle.

People had a good choice of meals and they felt the quality was very good. People were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their nutrition and hydration needs. Any changes in people’s health were referred to the relevant health care agencies. A health care professional we spoke with felt the home had really helped a person to improve their health.

People were treated with respect and dignity. People described the staff as “kind and caring” and “wonderful”. One person described the home as a “happy family”. Another person said, “It is homely, warm and friendly - like coming home.” There were warm, positive interactions between staff and the people who lived there.

People enjoyed individual and group activities at the home. People enjoyed going out with staff for walks, shopping or other local trips. Staff were knowledgeable about each person and knew how to support them. People’s care records included details of their preferences and how they were involved in their care.

People had information about how to make a complaint or comment. They said they would comfortable about telling the registered manager if they had any concerns and felt confident these would be acted upon. There had been no complaints for over a year.

The registered manager made herself accessible to people, relatives and staff. People spent time chatting with the registered manager and staff about their views. There was an open, friendly and welcoming culture in the home. Staff said they felt supported by the registered manager and felt valued by the provider.

Staff said the registered manager had made many improvements to the home over the past year and they were proud of the ‘gold standard’ rating the home had achieved from local authority commissioners.

The provider did not always monitor the quality the service in a systematic way but spent a lot of time at the home talking with people and staff. People, their relatives and staff were asked for their views about the home and these were used to improve the service.