- Homecare service
Housing 21 - Rowan Croft
Assessment report published 30 March 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
The assessment was carried out from 6 – 13 February 2026. We visited the service on 6 February 2026 and reviewed additional information the manager sent us electronically, following our site visit.
Housing 21 – Rowan Croft is an extra-care scheme that supports adults both over and under 65 including those living with a dementia and mental health conditions. At the time of the assessment 52 older people lived at Rowan Croft, of which 32 received personal care. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating and time since we last inspected. We also took into account that there had been no registered manager in post since 2023 which is a legal requirement to support accountable leadership. The manager told us that work to complete the registration process was underway and we will follow this up outside of the inspection process.
The service supported one person with a learning disability. Although the service was not registered as a specialist service for people with a learning disability and autism, we assessed it against the ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to consider whether the provider ensured people with a learning disability and autism received respect, equality, dignity, choice, independence and good access to local communities. We found that the principles of the guidance were met in practice. The manager had not been fully aware of this guidance. She told us she would strengthen her understanding of the guidance going forward.
There was a stable staff team, along with appropriate staffing levels and safe recruitment practices, which meant people received consistent care.
Staff, teams, and external professionals worked together effectively to support people. There was a handover system in place to ensure key information was shared between shifts. Staff used an electronic system that allowed messages and updates to be sent to all staff, which helped maintain consistent communication across the team.
The service was clean and well maintained. Staff had access to appropriate personal protective equipment.
Whilst governance systems were in place, some systems required strengthening to fully support safe, high‑quality care. We identified shortfalls in records relating to medicines, people’s care and support, the management of concerns and the submission of notifications about events at the service. Accidents and incidents were monitored across different systems, and work was underway to improve integration between these systems. We did not identify any negative impact from these shortfalls on people’s care and support.
Staff had completed core training and demonstrated good knowledge of people’s day‑to‑day needs. However, they had not completed formal training on specific health conditions to fully support people’s individual health needs. Although formal training had not been undertaken, staff had received informal guidance and support from relevant health professionals, which helped strengthen their understanding and practice.
Staff told they enjoyed working at the service and they felt supported and valued. Quarterly check‑ins and meetings were carried out, giving staff structured opportunities to discuss concerns, reflect on practice and feel supported in their roles.
People's experience of this service
People and relatives told us people were safe, One relative said, “100% he is safe, I cannot fault the staff, every carer is really good.” They also spoke positively about the service. Comments included “There are no negatives about his care; that is the best thing about moving in here” and “The facilities are modern; the staff are very good and have been there a long time and there is no problem getting hold of management.”
Staff treated people with kindness, compassion and dignity. People and relatives spoke positively about the staff and care provided. Comments included, “They care beyond expectations. They will do things to suit dad; they are very accommodating,” “They are always professional and set high standards. They are always friendly and they always listen to you and give advice when asked” and “100% [caring] I couldn’t ask for a more caring group of people.”
The service environment supported people’s independence. People had their own flats, and onsite facilities such as a restaurant and hairdressers which were run by external providers which were available for people to use independently or with support. People and relatives spoke positively about the premises and highlighted the convenience and flexibility these facilities provided.
Although we identified some shortfalls in record keeping in relation to medicines, people’s care and support and the management of concerns, we found no evidence of any negative impact on people’s care. People and relatives told us that staff met people’s needs, managed medicines safely and dealt with concerns and complaints effectively. They also described positive outcomes including improvements in people’s wellbeing, independence and daily experiences.