Rowanbrook Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion.

People and their relatives gave mixed feedback about how they or their loved ones were treated by the staff. For example, 1 person said, “Two weeks ago I was sat in here [the dining room] and she mopped around and over my feet. I asked her not to, but she continued.” Another person said, “Sometimes but not all of the time they are kind. Occasionally they shout at me. It’s the night staff. They don’t answer the buzzer.” A relative told us, “They all appear to be kind, but I don’t think they care enough. They are preoccupied with the phones [the hand held recording devices staff used to record people’s care] and updating them but not the people.” However, some people told us they were treated positively by staff. For example, 1 person said, “I don’t have any problems with the staff here. They are all good to me.” Another person said, “They are all very nice here. Some of them are like my own family.”

Our observations in communal areas identified variations in the way staff interacted with people. Some staff did not always interact positively with the people they supported. For example, we saw long periods of time where staff did not actively engage with people, they sat or stood in silence. However, we also observed some positive and caring interactions. For example, we saw some staff actively engaging with people, this included chatting with people and supporting people to engage in activities.

However, we saw people’s privacy was consistently promoted. For example, a person who required their medicines by injection was supported to access a private area of the home to enable them to have this medicine administered privately.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People and their relatives gave us mixed feedback about how staff supported them or their loved ones as individuals. One person described how staff did not always support them in line with their preferences. They said, “The way they wash me is different, they just haven’t got the same amount of time with me. They are always rushed. I don’t want to be in a rush.” However, a relative told us how they were confident staff met their loved one’s individual needs. They said, “They know her well here.”

Care plans to help staff meet people’s individual needs relating to learning disabilities were not in place and care plans associated with behaviours that challenged did not contain individualised information to enable staff to tailor care and support to each person.

However, systems were in place to gather general information on people’s life histories, likes and dislikes. Staff told us this information was recorded in people’s care plans and on posters in their bedrooms. One staff member said, “Activities do a lot of ‘about me’ with people to get to know them. We learn as we go along. We have activities and 1:1's and get to know people.”

The provider did not always promote an environment that consistently offered people choice and control over their care and support.

People and their relatives gave mixed feedback about how they or their loved ones were supported to have choice and control over their care and support. For example, 1 person said, “I don’t want to be told when to have a wash and when not to have a wash. When to eat I want my freedom.” A relative said, “[Relative] didn’t like the pudding today, so I asked for some ice cream. They just brought her the pudding, they didn’t ask her first. There is usually a choice.” However, another person told us how their care choices were met by staff. They said, “I chose to go to bed at about 9pm as I know I can’t sleep before then. I like to get up early about 6am.”

Our observations in communal areas identified variations in how people were offered and supported to make choices about their care and support. For example, we saw 1 person was not offered a choice of drink when a nurse presented a person with their medication and a glass of blackcurrant juice. The person told the nurse they didn’t like blackcurrant juice, so the person left the area and returned with some water. However, we saw staff offer another person a choice of drinks.

However, we saw where appropriate people were supported to be as independent as possible. For example, wheelchairs were not used to transport people from 1 room to another when they were able to walk short distances with support. Mobility equipment was used to promote independence.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Care records did not always contain the information required to enable staff to consistently respond effectively in moments of distress. Individualised information to enable staff to support each person in a manner that met their individual needs and preferences was not available for people who presented with behaviours that challenged. Staff gave us different accounts of how they would support people during periods of distress.

Our observations showed variations in the way staff responded to people’s immediate needs. For example, 1 person’ scare plan showed they required the support of 2 people to mobilise. We saw this person stand from their chair and express they needed to access the toilet. A staff member told the person to sit down but the person continued to walk out of the room unsupported. However, we also saw staff respond promptly and effectively when a person fell. An emergency alarm was activated and staff came quickly to provide appropriate support.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Care records showed that not all incidents involving aggression to staff were appropriately reported and investigated to ensure the risks posed to staff were effectively assessed and managed. For example, 1 person’s care records showed they had assaulted staff on 6 occasions over a 2-week period. Only 1 of these incidents had been reported and investigated as an incident and no review or changes in the person’s care plan had been made in attempt to protect staff from the risks associated with the person’s behaviour that challenged.

However, most staff described the provider and leadership team as supportive and understanding. One staff member said, “I’m treated well.” Another staff member told us, “They support wellbeing, I had an operation recently and they were understanding as I had to have time off work.”

An employee reward scheme was in place to recognise and celebrate positive feedback and achievements relating to individual staff members.