We carried out a review of the data available to us about Penfold Lodge 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 Penfold Lodge, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service:
Penfold Lodge provided a safe, relaxed and homely environment for people that encouraged personal development. Staff were friendly and respectful in their approach and interacted with people in a confident, friendly and considerate manner.
Systems and processes were in place to promote people’s safety in the home and when out in the Community. Staff had a good working knowledge of how to protect people from potential abuse and promote people’s rights.
People’s care records held on the homes electronic system were in parts brief. Improvement was needed to ensure care records show how the service is fully supporting people and how they should be responding to the risks people faced.
The provider had a thorough recruitment and selection process in place to check that staff were suitable to work with people who used the service. People were supported by enough staff. Staffing levels were flexible to support people to follow their interests, take part in social activities or attend hospital /GP appointments and follow ups with healthcare professionals.
During our visit we saw people were supported to express their views and choices and staff clearly understood each person’s needs and behaviours. Staff looked after people’s healthcare needs in a pro-active way. People were provided with choices of food and drink that met their individual needs.
The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service that people received. Arrangements were in place to routinely listen and learn from people’s experiences, concerns and complaints. There was a strong emphasis on promoting good practice in the service and there was a well-developed understanding of equality, diversity and human rights and management and staff put these into practice. The manager inspired confidence in the staff team and led by example.
Rating at last inspection: Good.
Why we inspected: This was the first inspection following the merger between the provider, Partnerships in Care and The Priory Group. The inspection was scheduled based on previous rating.
Follow up: We will re-inspect this service within the published time-frame for services rated good or sooner if required. We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
There was a registered manager in post. The manager was also the provider of the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.
The atmosphere within the service was relaxed and welcoming and there was a positive, inclusive and open culture. The ethos of care was person-centred and valued each person as an individual. People were treated with kindness, dignity, respect and understanding.
People, relatives and healthcare professionals gave positive feedback about the staff and management team. Staff were provided with the training they needed to meet people's needs and preferences effectively. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and recruitment processes checked the suitability of staff to work in the service.
Care plans were unique, person centred and reflected the care and support that each person required and preferred to meet their assessed needs, promote their health and wellbeing and enhance their quality of life.
People, staff and healthcare professionals expressed confidence in the leadership of the service. Staff were encouraged to be involved all aspects of people’s care which helped to promote a positive culture within the service and ensured staff were always aware of people’s current needs.
People were empowered to have choice, independence and control. Staff promoted people’s independence by being aware of their capabilities and encouraged people to do things for themselves, giving support where needed.
The continued review of people’s support needs showed that the service was continually striving to improve on the support they provided, in order to enhance people’s quality of life. The result of this was that people and their relatives could be reassured that they were receiving responsive and effective care which was always provided with compassion, dignity and respect.
People presented as relaxed and at ease in their surroundings and told us that they felt safe. Staff knew how to minimise risks and provide people with safe care. Procedures were in place which safeguarded the people who used the service from the potential risk of abuse. People knew how to raise concerns and were confident that any concerns would be listened and responded to.
People were provided with their medicines when they needed them and in a safe manner. People were prompted, encouraged and reassured as they took their medicines and given the time they needed.
Staff understood the importance of gaining people’s consent to the support they were providing. The management team and staff understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
Is the service safe?
Staff had received a range of training to protect people from harm. Safeguarding of vulnerable adults from abuse (SOVA), Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training were completed every year. Staff we spoke with told us that they were aware of the action they would take if they suspected abuse was or had taken place. They were also aware of what it meant to deprive someone of their liberty and why this was sometimes necessary.
We found that the service had suitable arrangements in place to gain people's consent to and assess people's mental capacity to make decisions should they not be able to consent to their care.
The policy, procedures and quality monitoring of the service included health and safety checks and reviews of care planning and delivery. These were comprehensive and ensured people lived in a safe environment with safe care.
Is the service effective?
People were satisfied with the care and support they received. This was consistent with the positive feedback received from people as reported in the provider's own quality assurance survey. All of the staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about individual people's care needs, and this knowledge was consistent with the care plans in place.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented, “I never feel rushed by the staff that help me, they don’t do everything for me and help me to do things for myself." We spoke with three people who used the service. One person said to us, "I like living here I have been here for many years." We observed the care and attention people received from staff. All interactions we saw were appropriate, respectful and friendly and there was a relaxed atmosphere throughout the service.
Is the service responsive?
We saw that care plans and risk assessments were informative, up to date and regularly reviewed. The registered manager responded in an open, thorough and timely manner to complaints. This meant that people could be assured that complaints were investigated and action was taken as necessary. Staff told us the manager was approachable and they would have no difficulty speaking to them if they had any concerns about the home.
Is the service well led?
Staff said that they felt well supported by the manager, there was a positive sense of the team working together and they were able do their jobs safely. The provider had a range of quality monitoring systems in place to ensure that care was being delivered appropriately by staff.
We found that staff received the training they needed to provide care and support safely. Staff were able to demonstrate that they understood the specific needs of the people using the service. We saw that staff treated people with respect.
Penfold Lodge was well managed and the registered manager had put robust systems and processes in place to ensure people received a good service that took into account their needs and preferences. The process to monitor the quality of the service ensured they listened to people and acted upon the feedback they received.
A healthcare professional told us the staff, "Are knowledgeable about people's issues and are proactive in contacting [healthcare professionals] when support is needed." They told us that people were progressing and their conditions were "well managed."
We saw that relatives had sent complimentary letters to the home, praising the standard of care, the staff and the improvements that had been made by the manager.