Penns Mount Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed together with people and their relatives before they moved into the service, where possible. Care plans were developed from these discussions and detailed people’s needs, with guidance for staff on how to meet these. Reviews took place to ensure care was still in line with their needs and wishes. People and their relatives were involved in developing the care plans.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People’s needs were assessed using recognised tools, for example, for nutrition and pressure ulcer prevention. This supported safe, well‑coordinated care delivery.

Staff knew people well and worked well with visiting professionals such as GP’s and specialist nurses to manage people’s health needs. Staff acted on advice given by specialist health professionals. Comments from professionals included, “Staff always have very good information; they are informative and helpful” and “I have no concerns with this care home which I visit on a regular basis”.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Good communication and joint working had been established between the service and external professionals to support people with their care and treatment.

People were supported to access care and treatment from a range of external specialist professionals, as well as attend outpatient appointments at hospital. Staff made timely and appropriate referrals for specialist support, including GPs and other health professionals. Professional advice was documented and followed.

Information-sharing systems ensured good communication with external services. Staff were well-informed and up to date about people’s individual needs. The registered manager held regular team meetings, daily handovers and briefings.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing. Staff were alert to emerging health issues and acted quickly by contacting GPs or arranged referrals. A relative said, “[Person] sees the dentist, optician and a referral has been made to the memory clinic. They [staff] are good at organising external assistance”.

Feedback from health professionals was positive about how the staff worked with them and outcomes for people. Comments included, “I can't find any concerns about their service”.

People and their relatives expressed confidence in how their health needs were identified and acted upon. Comments included, “They [staff] are very proactive; [person] has seen the doctor more since she’s been there than in the last 5 years” and “When I rang the home about getting a dentist, they had already booked one”.

Dietary needs were monitored, and preferences, needs and allergies were recorded on arrival. This information was shared with the kitchen staff to ensure people received the diet they required. The chef prepared meals suitable for people with diabetes or those with modified diet requirements. Overall, people reported they enjoyed the food and they confirmed they were always offered a choice. Comments included, “There’s always something to choose from the menu or something that the chef would do specially” and “There's plenty to eat here. I'm never hungry. I've actually put on weight since I came”.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff monitored people’s health needs through regular reviews, food and fluid monitoring charts when needed and repositioning schedules. They acted on changes promptly, contacting external professionals when needed, and relatives told us they felt involved,and updated about any changes. One relative said, “They’ve [staff] been amazing. There's been really good communication especially if dad has been feeling poorly. They were quick to get medical care for him when he was poorly and we're really grateful for that. They recognised when he was feeling unwell”.

Online feedback from a relative included,“[Person] has thrived [at Penns Mount. Although her condition is not easy and she is not mobile, the staff have been able to accommodate her needs and personality".

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The provider had processes that ensured the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was followed effectively, to support people who lacked capacity to make specific decisions about their care.

Staff ensured people were involved in decisions about their care, so their human and legal rights were upheld. People said staff respected their decisions and choices. Staff knew how to check consent before providing support, and interactions we observed were patient, respectful and involved explanation and reassurance.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of the MCA, and people who could make their own decisions were supported to do so, including routine choices about meals, activities and personal care.

Where people lacked capacity for more complex decisions, relatives and those with Power of Attorney were involved appropriately.