Penns Mount Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care and support were delivered in a way that reflected each person’s needs, preferences and routines. Staff knew people well and used their understanding to provide support that was personal and meaningful. One person said, “Nothing is wanting here”; another said, “I loved it as soon as I came. The staff are lovely. I tell everyone how lovely it is here”.

It was clear from our discussions with staff they wanted to provide the best possible care and support. One staff member told us the staff were motivated by a genuine desire to care, showing compassion, dedication and respect for the people they support.

People and their relatives were included in care planning wherever possible, and their needs, choices and preferences were documented. Some care plans were due to be reviewed, which we discussed with the registered manager. They told us they would address this.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Feedback and records demonstrated how staff and the management team worked flexibly with other services and professionals to meet people’s care and support needs.

People moving into the service were supported through a carefully planned and coordinated transition to ensure the move was smooth and flexible. One relative explained the difficult decisions to be made when considering a care home. They added, “The move was smooth. [Person] is settling well and has been made to feel welcome. We’re really pleased with this place”.

Staff identified where people needed more professional support in a timely manner and carried out appropriate information gathering to make comprehensive referrals. Feedback from external professionals and agencies consistently described positive experiences when working with Penns Mount. Professionals reported that contact with the service was prompt, accessible, and effective. Professionals noted quick access to the registered manager and clear information sharing supported safe decision‑making.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s communication needs had been identified, recorded and highlighted so that staff had access to relevant information about how people should be supported. For example, care records identified those people who needed spectacles or hearing aids to improve communication. One relative explained their family member’s ability to communicate had significantly declined; however, staff continued to communicate effectively with them and demonstrated genuine care and understanding.

There were notice boards around the home displaying relevant information. Additional signage would help support people living with dementia to navigate and feel orientated in their environment.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.The provider ensured people could easily share feedback, ideas, or raise concerns and complaints about their care. Staff actively involved people in decisions about their care. Regular resident and relatives’ meetings were held, during which the provider sought feedback to help shape and improve the service.

Feedback confirmed the provider communicated effectively and kept people and their families well informed. Relatives reported receiving information in ways that suited them, mainly through phone calls and emails, ensuring communication was accessible and timely. One person stated they were kept informed regularly and described the registered manager as “pretty good” at communication, highlighting reliability and consistency.

Families felt confident if issues arose, they would be communicated promptly and handled appropriately. Feedback also highlighted staff were responsive and reactive to concerns when raised and ensured that families were updated throughout. Several people expressed confidence in the complaints process and felt comfortable approaching senior staff at any time, although most reported they had not needed to do so due to the quality of care and communication provided.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Care plans took account of people’s individual needs, including any adjustments required to ensure equal access to care and support. For example, people had specific mobility and communication care plans that outlined how their needs should be met.

Communal areas were accessible to people with a range of mobility needs, including those who used wheelchairs. People had the equipment they needed, including an adapted/accessible bath.

The provider ensured people were able to access the care, support and treatment they required in a timely manner. Relevant external professionals were involved appropriately and advice and guidance sought where needed.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People experienced kind, consistent care that promoted equality and inclusion, regardless of their needs or level of independence. Feedback gathered showed people felt safe, respected and well supported. Comments included, “The care is great” and “I couldn't wish for anywhere better than here”.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

When people felt ready, their end-of-life preferences were sensitively discussed and documented. While care plans outlined basic wishes, some records lacked the detail needed to ensure people had everything they wished for at this time.

Treatment Escalation Plans (TEP) were in place, which recorded important decisions about how individuals wanted to be treated if their health deteriorated. This meant people’s preferences were known in advance, so they were not subjected to unwanted interventions or admission to hospital at the end of their life, unless this was their choice.