The Rowans Care Home

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 54 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care was not tailored to people’s needs and care plans did not provide staff with suitable guidance to meet people’s individual needs. Where people needed to be observed regularly to check on their safety or to reposition them, records had not always been completed. This meant we could not be sure they were receiving the individual care required. Staff were kind and caring, however did not have time to spend with people. People sat for extended periods in the communal area with minimal engagement from staff. Activities were not tailored to people’s interests and during our two site visits the activity was the same. Relatives felt that personalised care could be improved. One told us, "They could do with more than one bath a week, but that’s due to staffing levels" another told us, “There is no compassion, because they [staff] don’t have the resources they just stumble from one person to next.”

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. People health conditions were recorded within their care plans, however, information to guide staff on how to manage these health conditions was not always available. There was a lack of information recorded within peoples care records regarding health care advice. Where advice was recorded there was no information to show this advice had been followed by the service. We could not be assured that the service ensured continuity of care regarding people's health care needs.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Care plans and risk assessment lacked information and in places contradicted peoples support needs. Inconsistent recorded did not support continuity of care for people or ensure appropriate support was sought, provided or maintained. Information recorded about people's care was not always up to date as care plans and risk assessment were not reviewed on a regular basis. During the inspection the provider was in the process of changing electronic system to record people's care. Staff had to access information about people on two different platforms.

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. The relatives we spoke with told us they were involved in their family member’s care and support and were given opportunities to provide feedback to the provider. The provider had recently sent our feedback questionnaires to staff, people and relatives.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Due to a lack of information recorded within people’s care records, we could not be assured that timely referrals to health professionals were made for people, where required.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. People were not provided individualised care and support. Staff did access external health services for people; however, records were unclear and did not always detail required information about why external professionals were required or any follow up information received from health professionals.

People were not always 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. We could not be assured that the provider explored people's wishes for the future as care plans we reviewed did not contain this information.