You are here

Rowena House Limited Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 30 May 2019

About the service: Rowena House is a care home that provides accommodation for up to 22 older people. At the time of the inspection 14 people were using the service.

Rating at last inspection: At our inspection on 6 February 2018 the home was rated inadequate overall and was placed into ‘Special Measures’. At our last inspection 20 and 21 September 2018 we noted that improvement had been made and the overall rating for home was ‘Requires improvement’. However, the home remained in 'special measures' because they had been rated as 'Inadequate' in at least one key question over two consecutive comprehensive inspections.

At our last inspection 20 and 21 September 2018 we found breaches of regulations because medicines were not always managed safely, risks to people were not always property assessed, appropriate recruitment checks had not always been carried out before staff started work and the provider’s quality assurance processes were not operating effectively. We also found a breach of regulations because the registered manager in post at that time lacked an understanding of their regulatory responsibilities. They had not identified safeguarding incidents at the service as being potential incidents of abuse, despite similar concerns having been raised with them at the previous inspection amounting to a breach of regulations. Improvement was also required because some people’s end of life support preferences had not been discussed with them or their relatives. At that inspection a new manager had been appointed to manage the home. They had made some improvements in the way the service was operating.

At this inspection we saw that the manager had addressed these breaches and were compliant with the Regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The manager told us they had applied to the CQC to become the registered manager for the home.

People’s experience of using this service: Risks to people using the service were assessed, reviewed and managed appropriately. People’s medicines were managed safely. There were safeguarding adult’s procedures in place and staff had a clear understanding of these procedures. Appropriate recruitment checks were being carried out before staff started working at the home and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. There were procedures in place to reduce the risk of the spread of infections.

People’s care and support needs were assessed before they moved into the home. Staff had received training and support relevant to people’s needs. People were supported to maintain a balanced diet. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

Staff treated people in a caring and respectful manner. People’s wishes relating to their end of life care needs had been discussed with them or their relatives [where appropriate] and recorded in their care files. People and their relatives [where appropriate] had been consulted about their care and support needs. People were supported to participate in activities that met their needs. The home had a complaints procedure in place.

The manager had effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. They had worked in partnership with health and social care providers to plan and deliver an effective service. The provider took people, their relatives, staff and health and social care professionals views into account through satisfaction surveys and meetings. Feedback from the surveys and meetings was used to improve on the service. Staff enjoyed working at the home and said they received good support from the manager. Management support was always available for staff when they needed it.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on previous rating.

As the provider has demonstrated improvements and the service is no long

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 30 May 2019

The service was not always safe

Details are in our Safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 30 May 2019

The service was effective

Details are in our Effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 May 2019

The service was caring

Details are in our Caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 May 2019

The service was responsive

Details are in our Responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 30 May 2019

The service was not always well-led

Systems and processes that have been implemented have not been operational for a long enough time for us to be sure of consistent and sustained good practice. Therefore, the rating for this key question remains requires improvement.

Details are in our Well-Led findings below.