You are here

Archived: Pennine Lodge Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 December 2017

This inspection took place on 1 November 2017 and was unannounced.

At our last inspection on 29 March 2017 we rated the service as ‘Requires Improvement’ and identified three breaches which related to safe care and treatment, person-centred care and good governance. The service remained in 'special measures' as the well-led domain was rated 'Inadequate' which it had been at our previous inspection in October 2016. If any key question is rated ‘Inadequate’ over two consecutive comprehensive inspections the service is placed in special measures. We have now rated these key questions and the service overall as ‘Good’.

Pennine Lodge is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Pennine Lodge provides personal care for up to 40 older people living with dementia. The home is split into three separate units each with their own communal areas. Harrison unit has 14 places, Ryland and Williams units each have 13 places. There were 39 people using the service when we visited.

The home has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

We found the provider, registered manager and staff had worked hard to sustain and build on the improvements we had found at the last inspection. The increase in staffing levels had been maintained and was kept under review. The registered manager recognised additional staff were required at mealtimes and recruitment was on-going. We saw staff team worked well together as a team in meeting people’s needs.

Staff understood safeguarding procedures and knew how to report any concerns. Safeguarding incidents had been identified and referred to the local safeguarding team and reported to the CQC. Risks to people were assessed and managed to ensure people’s safety and well-being.

Medicines were managed safely. Robust recruitment procedures were in place which helped ensure staff were suitable to work in the care service. Staff received the training and support they required to carry out their roles and meet people’s needs.

The home was clean, bright and well maintained. Many areas had been redecorated and refurbished and this was on-going. People had been involved in these discussions for example choosing their own bed linen and murals to go round their bedroom doors.

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’s care plans were more personalised and the home was implementing an electronic care record system. People had access to healthcare services such as GPs, district nurse, dentist and chiropodist.

The mealtime experience for people had improved. Lunchtime was a pleasant, sociable occasion and we saw people were offered choices and given the support they required from staff. People's weights were monitored to ensure they received enough to eat and drink.

People told us they liked the staff and described them as kind and caring. People told us they were treated with respect and this was confirmed in our observations. People looked clean, comfortable and well groomed. We saw people enjoyed a wide range of activities both in the home and out in the wider community.

People and relatives knew how to make a complaint. Records showed complaints received had been dealt with appropriately and the outcome communicated to the complainant.

People, relatives and staff praised the improvements that had been made since the last inspec

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 December 2017

The service was safe.

Medicines were managed safely. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people�s needs in a timely manner. Staff recruitment processes were robust.

Risks to people�s health, safety and welfare were assessed and mitigated. Safeguarding incidents were recognised, dealt with and reported appropriately. Safe infection control systems were in place.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 December 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received the induction, training and support they required to fulfil their roles and meet people�s needs.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People�s nutritional and healthcare needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 December 2017

The service was caring.

People told us the staff were kind and caring.

People�s privacy, dignity and rights were respected and maintained by staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 December 2017

The service was responsive.

Care records generally reflected people�s current needs and were up to date.

A range of activities and events were provided for people both in the home and the community.

Systems were in place to record, investigate and respond to complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 8 December 2017

The service was well-led.

There was a registered manager who provided strong leadership and effective management of the service.

Previous regulatory breaches had been met and auditing systems ensured the quality of the service continued to be assessed, monitored and improved.