We carried out a review of the data available to us about Penshurst on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Penshurst, you can give feedback on this service.
Penshurst is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to 3 people living with a learning disability. People lived with the provider in a large house and had their own bedrooms and there was a choice of communal areas where people could socialise. At the time of our inspection there were 3 people at the service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.
This focused inspection covered safe and well-led. Based on the information reviewed and feedback from staff, relatives, people and external professionals the service was able to demonstrate how they were meeting the underpinning principles of right support, right care, right culture.
The model of care and setting maximised people's choice, control and independence. Care was person centred and promoted people's dignity, privacy and human rights. The ethos, values, attitudes and behaviours of leaders and care staff ensured people using services lead confident, inclusive and empowered lives.
Right Support
People were supported by the provider who knew how to prevent and manage risks and keep them safe from avoidable harm whilst enabling them to fully enjoy life. The service's arrangements for controlling infection were effective. People received their medicines safely; the provider or staff member were always available to meet people's needs.
Right care
The risk assessment and care planning system helped ensure people received personal care and support tailored to meet their individual needs and wishes. People were encouraged to make decisions about the care and support they received and had their choices respected.
Right culture
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and they were supported in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People, a family member and external professionals were positive about all aspects of the service. The provider understood their responsibilities and had safe systems in place to ensure these were met.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 4 December 2017).
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted due to the length of time since the previous inspection. We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
The inspection was conducted on 27 October 2017 and was unannounced. At the time of our inspection there were three people living at the home. At our last inspection, in August 2015, the service was rated as Good. At this inspection, we found the service remained Good.
The provider delivered the majority of the care and support themselves. They had developed positive, supportive relationships with people. People were at the centre of all decision making and said they were treated as members of the provider’s family. We observed positive interactions between people and the provider. It was clear they knew each other well and the provider understood people’s needs.
People told us they felt safe and secure at Penshurst. The provider had received appropriate training in a range of subjects, including how to protect people from the risk of abuse. Risks to people’s health and well-being were assessed and managed appropriately.
Medicines were stored securely and managed safely. One person was supported to manage some of their own medicines. Suitable arrangements were in place to deal with emergencies and people knew what to do if the fire alarm activated.
The provider was an experienced social care professional. They met people’s needs effectively and followed legislation designed to protect people’s rights.
People’s nutritional needs were met through a wide choice of meals based on their needs and preferences. Their health and well-being were monitored and they were supported to attend appointments with healthcare specialists.
People were involved in planning the care and support they received and the way the home was run. For example, they were consulted about changes in the use of communal areas of the home.
The provider had developed care plans to help ensure people’s needs were met in a personalised way. They empowered people to make choices and to lead happy, fulfilled lives.
People satisfied with the way the service was run. An appropriate quality assurance system was in place. The provider worked with an external consultant to help make sure they followed best practice and remained compliant with all regulations.
We inspected Penshurst on 28 August 2015. The inspection was unannounced. Penshurst is registered to provide accommodation for up to three people living with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were three people living at the home.
The provider delivered the majority of the care and support themselves. There was a very positive atmosphere at the home. People were at the heart of the service and were treated as members of the provider’s family.
People lived in a homely environment and were treated with kindness and compassion. We observed positive interactions between people and the provider. There was an open, trusting relationship and it was clear they knew each other well and the provider understood people’s needs.
People felt safe at Penshurst. The provider had received appropriate training in a range of subjects, including how to protect people from the risk of abuse. Risks to people’s health and well-being were assessed, monitored and managed appropriately. Most care was delivered by the provider, with occasional assistance from a family member who was also suitably trained. No additional staff were employed.
Medicines were stored securely and managed safely. Suitable arrangements were in place to deal with emergencies and people knew what to do if the fire alarm activated.
The provider was a skilled and experienced social care professional. They met people’s needs effectively and followed legislation designed to protect people’s rights and liberty. They supported people to make their own decisions.
People enjoyed their meals and received a choice of suitably nutritious diet based on their needs and preferences. Their health and well-being were monitored and they were supported to attend appointments with healthcare specialists.
People were involved in planning the care and support they received and the way the home was run. For example, they were consulted about colour schemes and themes when their bedrooms were redecorated.
The provider had an extensive knowledge of each person’s care and support needs and any underlying health concerns. They had developed detailed care plans which helped make sure people’s needs were met in a personalised way.
People were supported to make choices about how they lived their lives, what they did and where they spent their time. They were free to come and go as they pleased. Two people led active, busy, lives and were encouraged to maintain relationships with people important to them. A third person preferred to spend most of their time in their room.
People satisfied with the way the service was run. None wished to move from the home and none could suggest any ways that the service could be improved. The provider worked with an external consultant to help make sure they followed best practice and remained compliant with all regulations
On this occasion we found improvements had been made. Appropriate records were maintained; they were up to date and fit for purpose. We looked at care plans for the three people living at the home. We saw people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. People told us their needs were met. One said, 'They look after me well'.
We looked at the provider's policy on safeguarding. We saw it had been reviewed recently and was appropriate for a service of this type and size. Staff had received training in safeguarding and knew how to report abuse.
The provider lived at the home and delivered most of the care and support themselves. They were supported by one family member who also lived at the home and another family member who lived nearby. Additional support was provided by a domiciliary care agency which the provider was able to use when required.
The provider gave examples to demonstrate they actively consulted people about their care and treatment on a daily basis. For example, one person had been given the opportunity to move to a room on the ground floor so they could access the community more easily. They told us they had chosen to stay in an upper room where they enjoyed sea views. They said, 'I like it up here'.
People we spoke to told us that the manager and staff were easy to talk to and helpful, and that their privacy was respected whilst they were supported to maintain their independence.
During the inspection we were unable to see evidence that the provider responded appropriately to any allegation of abuse as the manager did not have a safeguarding file. There was not any evidence that risks were being regularly monitored and there was not any evidence that procedures were put in place to minimise risks occurring in the future.
People were supported in promoting their independence and community involvement. People told us that they enjoyed going out for walks, going to cafes and pubs. However we did not see evidence of this in peoples care plans, peoples care plans were brief, the manager told us that peoples up to date care plans were on the computer system that had crashed and because of this peoples care plans could not been accessed. We requested that the care plans for people were sent onto us as soon as the computer system is working, the manager agreed to do this.
People told us they had choice about where in the home they spent their time and what they did. We were told that health professionals were involved if they were unwell.