The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Penn House Residential Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

169-171 Penn Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV3 0EQ (01902) 345470

Provided and run by:
Vijay Odedra and Partners

All Inspections

15 November 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 15 November 2016. At the last inspection in September 2013, we found the provider was meeting all of the requirements of the regulations we reviewed.

Penn House Residential Home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 24 older people some of whom have dementia, who require personal care and support. On the day of the inspection there were 21 people living at the home. There was a registered manager in post. 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.

People told us they felt safe living at the home. Staff knew how to protect people from harm and were aware of how to report any concerns to people’s safety or well-being. Risks were assessed and managed in order to protect people from the risk of potential harm. People told us there were enough staff available to support them. People told us they received their medicines as prescribed and were supported by staff to access ‘as required’ medicines when needed.

People told us staff had the skills and knowledge required to support them and meet their care and support needs. Staff received training relevant to their role. 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 support this practice. People told us they enjoyed the food and drink provided and were supported to access appropriate healthcare professionals when required.

We observed some interactions from staff that were uncaring, although people told us staff treated them with kindness. People were supported to make decisions about their day to day care and support. People told us they were supported by staff who maintained their privacy and dignity.

People and their relatives were involved in the assessment and planning of their care. People were supported by staff who knew them well and understood their needs and preferences. Although activities were available, some people felt these could be more focused on individual interests. People knew how to complain if they were unhappy about the care they received and there was a system in place to manage and monitor complaints.

People and relatives told us the home was well managed. Staff felt supported by the registered manager and provider. Some people and relatives felt more could be done to gather their views about the home, although the provider did have systems in place to gather feedback. The registered manager had systems in place to monitor the quality of care provided.

27 September 2013

During a routine inspection

During this inspection we spoke with seven people, four relatives, three staff members, the home manager and the owner.

People's needs were assessed and care was delivered appropriately. One person said, 'I am very well looked after here.'

Arrangements were in place to ensure that people were protected from harm. One person told us, 'I feel very safe here.'

We found that selection and recruitment processes were consistent. Staff received the appropriate checks before they were employed to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

Systems were in place to ensure that shortfalls were identified and acted upon. One relative said, 'You can tell the manager anything and they sort it out.'

We found that records were fit for purpose, accurate and reviewed on a regular basis.

2 February 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this inspection to check on the care and welfare of people who lived at the home, and also to check whether improvements had been made to the suitability of premises.

There were 22 people living at the home on the day of the inspection. We spoke with four people, two staff members, the home manager, and the home owner.

We found that people received care that met their needs. People had access to other healthcare professionals in a timely manner. One person said, 'The care is very good, and the staff always help me.'

We found that improvements had been made to ensure that the environment and facilities were suitable for people. One person told us, 'It is much better now, I have no complaints.'

4 April 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We spoke with most people during the time of our visit. The people who were able to speak with us mainly confirmed their satisfaction with the care they received from the staff. One person told us that it could be boring on some days.

One person described the staff as "great". People told us that they went to bed and got up when they wanted. One person told us that she liked the fact that staff checked on her regularly through the night.

Not everyone was able to speak with us but they appeared contented, warm and relaxed throughout our visit. People smiled and laughed and we saw lots of chatting and laughing with the staff.

We saw staff attending to the care needs of people in an efficient and effective way. We did not see or hear anyone waiting for assistance when they needed help and support. One visitor told us that they were really pleased with their relative's care and said that the staff were all really helpful.

People said that they enjoyed the food and that they had enough to eat. We saw that people received support and assistance when required. We saw a range of risk assessments and care plans in place where people required support. We also saw that people were referred for more specialist support when they needed it.

We noted that there had been some improvements to the equipment maintenance and environment. As with the previous inspection we saw some areas around the premises that would greatly benefit from refurbishment, renovation and repair. For example we found a door strip missing between the corridor and one of the bedrooms, the carpet on the first floor was in need of replacement and the toilet and shower areas needed complete refurbishment. This would greatly enhance the living arrangements and provide additional comfort for the people using the service.

We saw that where bedrails were used, there were systems in place to assess the risk. These were kept under regular review.

Most people we spoke with told us they were satisfied with the service provided and the manager explained the way that they monitored the quality of the home. The manager had completed a full environment audit. We were told that some of the work had not been completed. We looked around the premises and saw that some improvements had been made to the physical appearance of the premises. The provider told us they are 'continually investing in the environment', but did not have a plan of any future works. . We saw that although these checks were being made, they were not always effective in achieving the improvements and developments required.

3 November 2011

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We spoke with most people during the time of our visit. The people who were able to speak with us mainly confirmed their satisfaction with the accommodation, the staff and life in general. One person described the staff as, 'A very good team'. They said that their bedrooms were comfortable and warm and that they could go to their rooms when ever they wished to do so.

Some people were unable to fully comment but smiled and nodded when asked if they were alright. We observed people looking warm and at ease, staff had provided additional cushions to make sure people are as comfortable as possible.

We saw staff attending to the care needs of people in an efficient and effective way. We did not see or hear anyone waiting for assistance when they needed help and support.

One person told us 'I am very happy here and staff look after me very well'.

We saw that all people living at the home have a plan of their care needs. This gives staff the information needed to provide the care to people in they way that they prefer. A senior member of staff told us of the plans to involve people and their relatives more in the planning of care.

People said that they enjoyed the food and that they had enough to eat. One person complained that the food provided was cold but declined the offer of having it reheated. A member of staff informed us that only one small oven was in working order and this had an impact on keeping the food at a suitable temperature.

People with spoke with told us that they felt safe whilst living at Penn House, and told us that they felt able to speak with staff if they had any concerns. Staff told us of the ways they help people to remain safe.

Staff told us of the way they offer medication to people, they told us they had received training in the safe handling of medication. People living at the service told us that staff give them their tablets when they need them.

Staff told us of the improvements that had recently been made to the premises, with plans for further improvements to be made. People using the service told us they were satisfied with the accommodation, but we saw some areas around the premises that would greatly benefit from refurbishment, renovation and repair. This then would greatly enhance the living arrangements, promote the wellbeing and provide additional comfort for the people using the service.

We saw that some people need bedrails to prevent them from falling out of bed. We saw that some relatives had consented to their use on behalf of the person. We saw that not all rails were correctly fitted and as a consequence were a potential hazard and a risk to the person. We spoke with the manager who immediately arranged for them to be fitted correctly.

Most people we spoke with told us they were satisfied with the service provided and the manager explained the way that they monitor the quality of the home. We saw that although checks are being made, they are not always effective enough to identify areas of potential risk or concern.

16 June 2011

During a routine inspection

People using the service told us that generally the staff were very good to them and that they liked the food.

One person was 'not too happy' with the food and told us that sometimes the 'porridge is lumpy'.

Visitors told us that they feel that the care is good, sometimes the communication is 'hit and miss'. Generally though they have no concerns with the service.

Other people told us that they feel more outside activity would be beneficial for the people who use the service.

Some people were unable to comment or declined to talk with us about their experiences. We observed some people looking comfortable others no quite so.