Archived: Rowan House

Updated 21 July 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 19 June 2018. Our visit was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. Their area of expertise was people with a learning disability.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return [PIR]. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. The provider returned the PIR and we took this into account when we made judgements in this report. We also reviewed information we held about the service such as notifications, these are events which happened in the service that the provider is required to tell us about.

We contacted the health and social care commissioners who monitor the care and support of people receiving care at Rowan House to obtain their views of the care provided. We also contacted Health watch Leicestershire, the local consumer champion for people using adult social care services to see if they had any feedback. We used this information to inform our judgement of the service.

At the time of our inspection there were nine people living at the service. We were able to speak with five people living there and four relatives. We also spoke with the registered manager, the administrator and five support workers.

We observed support being provided in the communal areas of the service. This was so we could understand people’s experiences. By observing the care received, we could determine whether or not they were comfortable with the support they were provided with.

We reviewed a range of records about people’s care and how the service was managed. This included two people’s plans of care. We also looked at associated documents including risk assessments. We looked at records of meetings, recruitment checks carried out for two support workers and the quality assurance audits the management team had completed.

Updated 21 July 2018

Rowan House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Rowan House accommodates up to nine people and is designed to meet the needs of people with a learning disability. On the day of our inspection nine people were using the service.

We inspected the service on 19 June 2018. Our visit was unannounced. This meant the registered manager and staff team did not know we would be visiting.

At the last inspection in November 2015, the service was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection, we found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of ‘Good’ and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns.

The service had a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons.’ Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was also the provider and worked across two services which were in close proximity to each other.

The service had been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. The aim is that people with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

People told us they felt safe living at Rowan House. Their relatives agreed with what they told us. The registered manager and the staff team knew their responsibilities for keeping people safe from avoidable harm and knew what to do if they were concerned about anyone.

People’s care and support needs had been assessed prior to them moving into the service and the risks associated with their care and support had been reviewed and managed.

People were supported with their medicines effectively and staff competency had been checked to make sure people were supported in a safe way.

People spoken with felt there were enough staff members available to meet people’s care and support needs, Whilst the majority of the support workers we spoke with felt there were enough support workers on shift to meet people’s needs, comments were made regarding the extra tasks they were expected to perform whilst on duty.

Plans of care had been developed for each person using the service and the staff team knew the needs of the people they were supporting well.

Appropriate recruitment processes had been followed when new staff were employed to make sure they were suitable and safe.

People received support from a staff team that had the necessary skills and knowledge. New members of staff had received an induction into the service when they were first employed and training relevant to their role had been provided.

People were provided with a comfortable place to live and there were appropriate spaces to enable people to either spend time with others, or on their own. The staff team had received training in the prevention and control of infection and the necessary protective personal equipment was available.

The staff team supported people to make decisions about their day to day care and support. They were aware of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) ensuring people's human rights were protected. Where people required additional support to make decisions, advocacy support was made available to them.

People's food and drink requirements had been assessed and a balanced diet was being provided. People were supported to maintain good health. They had access to relevant healthcare services and they received on-going healthcare support.

People told us the staff team were kind and caring and treated them in a friendly and respectful way. Observations made during our visit confirmed this.

People knew who to talk to if they had a concern of any kind. A formal complaints process was in place though this was not displayed. People were confident that any concerns they had would be taken seriously and acted upon by the registered manager and staff team.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service being provided and a business continuity plan was available to be used in the event of an emergency or untoward event.

The registered manager and the management team were aware of their registration responsibilities

including notifying CQC of significant incidents that occurred at the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.