You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 June 2018

We inspected Pendlebury Court Care Home on 18 April 2018. The service was registered to accommodate up to 39 older people, with age related conditions, including frailty, mobility issues and dementia. On the day of our inspection there were 36 people living in the care home. The service was last inspected on 26 September 2016; no concerns were identified and the service was rated Good overall.

There was no registered manager in post, although the acting manager was present on the day of the 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.

People received care and support from staff that were appropriately trained and competent to meet their individual needs. There were opportunities for additional training specific to the needs of the service, such as diabetes management and the care of people with dementia. Staff received one-to-one supervision meetings with their line manager.

People’s needs were assessed and improved care plans provided staff with clear guidance about how they wanted their individual needs met. Care plans were personalised and contained appropriate risk assessments. They were regularly reviewed and amended as necessary to ensure they reflected people’s changing support needs.

There were policies and procedures in place to guide staff on how keep people safe from harm.

People were supported with patience, consideration and kindness and their privacy and dignity was respected. People were protected from potential discrimination as staff were aware of and responded effectively to their identified needs, choices and preferences. People’s individual communication needs were assessed and they were supported to communicate effectively with staff.

Thorough staff recruitment procedures were followed and appropriate pre-employment checks had been made.

Systems were in place to ensure medicines were managed safely in accordance with current regulations and guidance. People received medicines when they needed them and as prescribed.

The acting manager worked in cooperation with health and social care professionals to ensure people received appropriate healthcare and treatment in a timely manner. People were able to access health, social and medical care, as required.

The provider was meeting the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were provided with appropriate food and drink to meet their health needs and were happy with the food they received. People’s nutritional needs were assessed and records were accurately maintained to ensure people were protected from risks associated with eating and drinking. Where risks to people had been identified, these had been appropriately monitored and referrals made to relevant professionals, where necessary.

People knew how to make complaints, and the provider had a process to ensure action was taken where this was needed. People were encouraged and supported to express their views about their care and staff were responsive to their comments and views.

The provider had failed to consistently notify the Care Quality Commission of events in line with statutory requirements.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 June 2018

The service remains good.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 June 2018

The service remains good.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 June 2018

The service remains good.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 June 2018

The service remains good.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 12 June 2018

The service was not consistently well led.

There was no registered manager in post.

The provider had failed to consistently notify the Care Quality Commission of events in line with statutory requirements.

Inconsistent quality assurance systems meant shortfalls in the care people received were not always identified or acted upon.

There was an open and inclusive culture. Although formal supervision had not taken place, staff felt valued and supported.

The previous rating was displayed correctly on the website.