You are here

Pennine Care Centre Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 3 November 2018

We carried out an unannounced inspection of the service on 21 and 23 May 2018. Pennine Care is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Pennine Care is registered to provide residential care for up to 64 people in one building. Some of these people were living with dementia and mental health issues. At the time of the inspection 42 people were using the service. The service was divided into two distinctive areas Pennine and Moorland with Moorland being a male provision.

The service does not have a registered manager. 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. However a manager was in post and had applied for registration with CQC.

During the home’s previous inspections in May 2015 and April 2017, we rated the home overall as Requires improvement. At this inspection we continued to find areas of concern. The overall rating continues to be ‘Requires Improvement’. The details of the reasons why are explained in the summary below and in the body of the main report.

People felt safe living at the home. Staff understood the processes for protecting people from avoidable harm. However some staff did not always put the protection of people first. People’s medicines were generally managed safely however they were not always stored in a manner that ensured they were safe to use.

The risks to people’s safety had been assessed and care plans were in place to support people safely. There were enough staff to keep people safe. Although staff were trained to deliver person centred care, this did not always happen and some care was task led. This could place people at risk of poor care. Accidents and incidents were regularly reviewed, assessed and investigated by the registered manager. The home was clean and fresh.

People’s physical, mental health and social needs were not always assessed and provided in line with current legislation and best practice guidelines. People were supported by trained staff who had their performance regularly assessed. People did not always speak highly about the food. People were not always assisted to eat in a manner that promoted their dignity.

The manager had built effective relationships with external health and social care organisations and people’s health was regularly monitored. The environment had been adapted to ensure people who had mental or physical disabilities were able, where possible to move freely. There was directional signage to support people living with dementia to orientate themselves independently around the home.

Staff mostly treated people with dignity and respected their privacy, however we saw occasions where people did not have their dignity supported. Some people felt able to make decisions about their care and felt the staff respected those decisions. People were encouraged to lead as independent a life as possible and some were prepared for a more independent life back in the community. People were provided with access to an independent advocate if they needed one.

People’s care records were person centred and guidance was provided for staff on how each person would like to be cared for.

People did not have their social care needs recognised and met. Group activities were available but these were not suitable to everyone. People were not always encouraged to attend these and were planned a year in advance. They did not always include activities that were important to individuals. People felt able to make a complaint and were confident it would be dealt with appropriately. The service r

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 3 November 2018

The service was not always safe.

People's safety was not always promoted and some people in their rooms were left unattended for periods of time. Staff did not always follow instructions to protect people from risk.

Medicines were administered as prescribed. However, they were not always stored effectively.

Staff were recruited safely. People were protected from the spread of infection.


Requires improvement

Updated 3 November 2018

The service was not always effective.

People were not happy with the quality of the food and their consent was not always sought. People’s rights were protected under the Mental Capacity Act.

Staff were trained to care for people, they did not always put their training into effect. People’s mental and physical health was promoted.


Requires improvement

Updated 3 November 2018

The service was not always caring.

People’s dignity was not always promoted. Some staff did not respond to people.

Other staff were caring and kind. People’s privacy was promoted.


Requires improvement

Updated 3 November 2018

The service was not always responsive.

There were activities in the service for some people but not for all. Care was not always personalised.

There was a complaints system in place. The service had many compliments.


Requires improvement

Updated 3 November 2018

The service was not well led.

The provider did not ensure the service was managed in the best interest of the people who used it. Care was not always personalised.

Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service, however they were not robust and there was a lack of on-going monitoring for improvement. Staff were supported.