The Rowans

Our view of the service :

We carried out this assessment on 1 August 2026.

This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

Risks were identified, assessed and managed, and staff understood the risks associated with people’s care. Staff told us they anticipated risks before they happened. One member of staff told us, “You risk assess every day, every time you go out with someone. You are constantly assessing the risks in the community.” The registered manager told us, “We do try to expose them to as absolutely as many risks as we all take but we realise that there are certain areas that will always need restrictions to keep people safe.”

Staff understood their responsibilities in safeguarding people from abuse and neglect. One member of staff told us, “We have a whistleblowing system in place. We have the [safeguarding] policy, and we follow that step by step.” The registered manager told us, “Staff are all on board with the safeguarding, they're all up to date with their training.”

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives. One member of staff told us, “We judge everyone has capacity unless proven otherwise. [Registered manager] does the capacity assessments and best interest discussions.”

Incidents and concerns were reported and reviewed, and learning was used to improve practice. Staff completed ABC forms which is an observation tool used to track and analyse people’s distress incidents. The registered manager told us, “When we have an incident, there's a debrief, if there's any injuries, incident logs are filled out, it's escalated to the relevant levels. Parents are informed, so it's all very transparent.”

Rotas were planned carefully to ensure people were supported by the appropriate numbers of staff. This included where more staff were required when people required additional staff to support them when they went out to activities. A member of staff told us, “There is a core group [of staff] which is enough.”

Staff were provided with an effective induction which included a phased approach to introducing new staff to people. Meeting staff over time allowed people to get familiar with new faces and voices at their own pace. Staff received appropriate training and supervision. One member of staff told us, “The training is good, we have e-learning and face to face.”

Staff worked with health and social care professionals where needed, supporting good outcomes and continuity of care. One member of staff told us, “We do annual health checks, things like appointments, we book those in, we take them to dental appointments, opticians and blood tests when required.”

Staff consistently promoted and respected people’s privacy and dignity, ensuring person-centred care was delivered at all times. People were treated as individuals, and care plans reflected people’s preferred routines, preferences and life history. One member of staff told us, “Respect their [people’s] wishes, I make sure they have as much choice as possible.”

Leaders and staff listened to feedback and responded appropriately to concerns. We did feed back that the recording of key worker meetings and surveys could be undertaken in a more meaningful way to show how people had been involved in their discussions. Leaders told us they were introducing a new template to evidence this more clearly.

Leaders and staff understood the barriers people may face in accessing healthcare and treatment and actively worked to address them. One member of staff told us, “Removing the barriers and making sure they can do what they wish to improve their quality of life. Supporting people to ensure they are happy.”

The service was well-led. Leaders promoted a clear direction focused on person‑centred care and continuous improvement. Governance systems provided oversight of quality, risk and performance. The registered manager was approachable, and staff felt supported to raise concerns, contribute to learning, and deliver safe, high‑quality care. One member of staff told us, “I feel very supported, it’s one of the best jobs I have had. I feel valued, very much so. [Registered manager] is one of the best managers I have ever worked with.”

Staff understood the value and ethos of the service with 1 member of staff telling us, “It’s really more to support [people] to progress to a better life. I want to improve their lives.”

Leaders actively drove ongoing learning, new ideas, and better ways of working throughout their own services. The registered manager told us, “Quality assurance managers share key learning, highlight areas for improvement and celebrate examples of good practice. Important themes are then reported to senior leaders to make sure any action needed is taken.”