• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Pepenbury

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Cornford Lane, Pembury, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN2 4QU (01892) 822168

Provided and run by:
Larkfield With Hill Park Autistic Trust Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

28 September 2016

During a routine inspection

We inspected Pepenbury on 28 and 29 September 2016. The inspection was unannounced. Pepenbury is a residential care service which offers accommodation and support for up to 56 adults with a learning disability and other associated needs, such as physical disability. At the time of the inspection there were 56 adults living at the service in 8 residential houses on the Pepenbury site. People were grouped in the homes with people of a similar level of ability or diagnosis. Some people had profound learning disabilities and physical disabilities, some people had autism spectrum disorder, other people had behaviours that challenge and some people had moderate learning disabilities. Some people were able to communicate verbally and other people had severe communication difficulties. The site is on the outskirts of Tunbridge Wells and people are accommodated in eight detached houses.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager at the home. 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.

Risks to people's safety had been assessed and actions taken to protect people from the risk of harm. The provider had systems in place to protect people against abuse and harm. The provider had effective policies and procedures that gave staff guidance on how to report abuse.

The registered manager had robust systems in place to record and investigate any concerns. Staff were trained to identify the different types of abuse and knew who to report to if they had any concerns.

Some premises had been adapted to meet people’s needs but some environments, such as bathrooms were in need of refurbishment. We have made a recommendation about this in our report.

Medicines were managed safely and people had access to their medicines when they needed them.

Staff were well trained with the right skills and knowledge to provide people with the care and assistance they needed. Staff met together regularly and felt supported by the management team. Staff were able to meet their line manager on a one to one basis regularly. There were sufficient staff to provide care to people throughout the day and night. When staff were recruited they were subject to checks to ensure they were safe to work in the care sector.

Where people did not have the mental capacity to understand or consent to a decision, the provider had followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). An appropriate assessment of people's ability to make their own decisions had been completed. Where people's liberty may be restricted to keep them safe, the provider had followed the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure each person's rights were protected.

People had enough to eat and drink, and received support from staff where a need had been identified. People's special dietary needs were clearly documented and trained staff ensured these needs were met.

The staff were kind and caring and treated people with dignity and respect. Good interactions were seen throughout the day of our inspection, such as staff talking with people as equals. Staff knew the people they cared for well and treated them with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect.

People could have visitors from family and friends whenever they wanted. People and [most of?] their relatives spoke positively about the care and support they received from staff members.

People received a person centred service that enabled them to live active and meaningful lives in the way they wanted. People had freedom of choice at the service. People could decorate their rooms to their own tastes and choose if they wished to participate in any activity. Staff respected people's decisions.

People felt well cared for and were supported with a variety of activities. People had individualised activities planners that reflected their choices and interests.

Support plans ensured people received the support they needed in the way they wanted. People’s health needs were well managed by staff so that they received the treatment and medicines they needed to ensure they remained healthy. Staff responded effectively to people's individual needs.

Staff interacted with people very positively and people responded well to staff.

The culture of the service was open and person focused. The registered manager provided clear leadership to the staff team and maintained an active presence in the home.

Audits to monitor the quality of service were effective and embedded. They identified actions to improve the service which were followed up and carried out.

20 February 2014

During a routine inspection

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because some of the people who lived there had complex needs which meant they were not always able to tell us about their experiences. We visited six houses and spoke with eleven people who were living at the service, and twelve members of staff

We saw that people were treated with respect and dignity. People were supported to be independent in line with their individual abilities and to make choices about their daily lives. People told us they liked living at the service, one person told us 'It is a nice place to live, I'm very happy' and another person told us 'my room is nice, I like it'.

People's needs were set in their individual care records which were kept up to date and had been regularly reviewed. The information provided staff with guidance about how to meet people's needs in the ways they preferred, and about how to promote their health and welfare.

The provider had assessed the needs of the people living at the service and staffed it accordingly.

There were enough staff on duty to give people the support they needed. We saw that people were comfortable with staff and that interactions between staff and people were positive and respectful. Staff did not rush people when supporting or speaking with them, and respected when people wished to exercise their independence.

Staff were supported to undertake their roles safely and effectively. They received relevant training, regular supervision and were encouraged to undertake further professional development.

There was a system in place to manage compliments and complaints and we saw that complaints had been responded to appropriately.

16 April 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We did not speak to people who used the service on this occasion. We did see that information about people's medicines had been reviewed and brought up to date. People had had a review of their medicines by their GP to make sure they were the right ones for them and the dosages were correct.

10 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We inspected five of the ten houses on the site. Some of the people living at the service were unable to talk to us directly about their experiences due to their complex needs, so we used a number of different methods to help us understand their experiences. Whilst most people were not able to directly tell us their views, they were able to indicate to us, either verbally or through gestures, what activities they had been doing or some things that were important to them.

People said they liked living at Pepenbury and liked the staff. People said they could tell staff if they were not happy with anything and could speak with them privately. Staff understood people's needs including how to communicate with them. One person said 'I like living here as I live with my friends and can go to work each day'.

People were treated with respect and dignity. They had opportunities to make decisions about their own lives. They made day to day choices such as about what to do, what to eat and when to get up and go to bed. One person said 'I can get up when I want. The only time I have to get up early is when I go to work'. People chose activities they wanted to attend. One person said they enjoyed pottery and another that they were 'going up the hill to do gardening'. Another person said 'I like trains and am going on a train soon'.

The provider made regular checks of the service to make sure that people were getting the support they needed and the service was safe.

10 October 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

We visited four of the ten houses on the site and saw some of the people who lived in the houses we visited. We did not speak directly with people using the service on this occasion, but observed some people in the company of staff.We saw that people approached staff freely and were happy to ask them questions. We saw that people with little or no verbal communication or who used non verbal methods to communicate, such as sounds and gestures communicated with staff and that staff understood what they were saying.

11 July 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

We did not speak individually to people living at the service, although we observed staff with them for a short while. We saw that they were comfortable with staff, were able to seek their advice and support and had a good rapport with them. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people's needs and individual interests.