- Care home
Pendlebury Court Care Home
Assessment report published 9 November 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Inspection: 7 to 12 September 2026. Pendlebury Court Care Home is a residential home providing regulated activity to adults under and over the age of 65 and people living with dementia. The service is registered to provide care for up to 39 people. At the time of our inspection, 30 people were using the service. This inspection was carried out due to the length of time that has passed since the last published inspection in 2020. The provider had made some improvements since the last inspection, however, further improvement was needed to ensure people consistently received safe, effective, dignified and respectful care. The provider was previously in breach of legal regulations relating to the safety of care and governance at the service. At this assessment, sufficient improvements had not been made, and the provider remained in breach of these regulations. We also identified a breach of the legal regulation relating to treating people with dignity and respect. The provider had previously been in breach of the legal regulation relating to person-centred care; however, improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.
People were not always protected from the risk of avoidable harm. We identified shortfalls in medicines management, and care records were not always accurate, complete or kept up to date to reflect people's current needs and professional guidance. Although there were sufficient staff on shift during the inspection, staff were not always deployed effectively to recognise and respond to people's needs in a timely way.
People did not always experience care, which was kind, compassionate and upheld their dignity. We observed missed opportunities for staff to engage meaningfully with people, and some interactions were solely task focused. People's independence, choice and control were not always promoted, and staff did not consistently adapt their approach to meet people's individual needs, including the needs of people living with dementia or memory impairment.
People were supported to access healthcare professionals and other relevant services when required, helping to ensure their health and wellbeing needs were identified. Safeguarding systems and processes were effective in identifying, reporting and responding to concerns to help protect people from the risk of abuse. Environmental risks were appropriately assessed and monitored, and systems were in place to oversee infection prevention and control practices and maintain a safe environment. The provider had developed links within the local community, which provided opportunities for people to maintain community connections and take part in activities outside the service. Staff told us they generally felt supported in their roles by the management team.
The provider had governance systems in place which effectively monitored some areas of risk, including skin integrity, nutrition and hydration, weight loss and falls. However, governance and quality assurance arrangements had not been effective in identifying and addressing all the concerns we found during this inspection. The continued shortfalls demonstrated improvements had not been consistently embedded or sustained.
The provider was open and transparent throughout the inspection and demonstrated a willingness to improve. Following our feedback, they provided an action plan setting out the actions they intended to take to address the concerns identified.
People's experience of this service
Not everyone using the service was able to share their views and experiences with us. To help us understand people's experiences of care, we sought feedback from relatives and carried out observations throughout the inspection.
Through our observations, we found people did not always receive care and support that was personalised to their individual needs and preferences. We observed missed opportunities for staff to engage meaningfully with people and provide reassurance and support. Staff interactions were at times task-focused and did not consistently demonstrate consideration for people's comfort, wellbeing or individual needs.
Relatives spoke positively about the service. They told us they felt involved in their family member's care and knew how to raise a complaint if required. Relatives also told us their family members were able to access healthcare services when needed. One relative described how staff recognised changes in their family member's wellbeing and arranged timely access to a GP. Another relative told us staff responded promptly when their family member required equipment, ensuring the necessary support was put in place without delay. Relatives also spoke positively about the safety of the service and the support provided by staff.