Rowan Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Overall, people were positive about the care they received and told us they felt staff knew about them. One person said, “The staff are getting to know me. They know when I get into bed, I need a pillow one side for my arm and a squidgy pillow the other side to stop me going against the bar and a soft pillow for my head. They always put everything where I like it.” Another person said, “The staff always ask me if I want a shower. I wasn’t keen at first but now I’ve had it, it’s wonderful and does me the power of good.” People’s relatives told us they felt that staff knew their loved ones, their life stories, histories, preferences and choices. One person’s relative said, “They have encouraged people to write their life stories down and share them.” Staff told us they attended handover and had access to care plans. Care plans were regularly reviewed. Plans in relation to people’s health needs provided clear guidance for staff on how to support people. Some of the language used in documentation did not evidence a person-centred approach. We fed this back to the management team who were aware of the issue and were planning to address it.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People’s relatives told us their loved ones were referred to relevant health and social care professional when required. Staff told us and we observed how they referred people for GP review. Staff could contact the GP surgery at any time if they had any concerns or questions, alongside weekly visits. When additional input from other health professionals such as the speech and language therapist (SALT), or the older people’s mental health team was required, staff were able to refer direct. We saw records in place of when people were reviewed by health professionals.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff supported people to use technology to keep in touch with their friends and families. Staff told us how they supported a person to use a device which enabled them to answer staff questions. We saw menus on tables and on a big screen. Results of surveys were on display and there was a quarterly newsletter for people and their relatives. We saw people in the lounge reading daily newspapers.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People told us staff listened to their views and acted on feedback. People and their relatives knew how to voice their opinions or raise complaints and felt able to do so. Nobody we spoke with had raised a complaint, but they told us they felt confident that anything relayed would be dealt with in a satisfactory manner. If concerns had been raised to the management team or staff, we were told it was dealt with swiftly. One person said, “I’m sure they would have a complaints process, but I don’t know what I’d complain about.” Complaints had been logged, investigated and responded to. The registered manager told us they hadn’t held resident or relative meetings for some time. They said, “We don’t have a big meeting anymore, but we do have an open-door policy. Everyone has my email address and can contact me if needed. If I need to let all the relatives know something, I will send a group email. Relatives do attend for care plan reviews, so we catch up then as well.”

Staff at the service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People's care records showed they had access to care, and that referrals were made for treatment or advice when needed. A healthcare professional told us, “Staff are always very helpful and find the appropriate staff member for us to liaise with.”

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Staff had received equality and diversity training and understood the importance of ensuring people were not subject to inequality or discrimination due to their age or health needs.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Nobody at the service was receiving end of life care at the time of our inspection. Staff told us external healthcare professionals supported them to look after people at the end of their lives. Staff liaised with other professionals to ensure anticipatory medicines were in place when required. The registered manager told us they were in the process of sourcing additional training for staff to support them with end-of-life care.