You are here

Pennine Resource Centre Good

Reports


Review carried out on 7 October 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Pennine Resource Centre on 7 October 2021. 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 Pennine Resource Centre, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 19 September 2017

During a routine inspection

Pennine Resource Centre is registered to provide care and accommodation for 19 adults who are living with a learning or physical disability. The service offers mainly permanent placements to people. However, there are two people who use the service to alternate care between their home in the community and the service. Nine bedrooms have en-suite facilities. The service had several communal areas, private and accessible garden areas, and car parking to the front of the building. It is situated close to shops and local amenities.

During our inspection, there were 18 people who used the service.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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. During our inspection, the registered manager was on leave so the deputy manager facilitated the inspection and submitted the requested documentation following the inspection.

The service was last inspected on 30 September 2015 and was rated as Good. We undertook this inspection on 19 September 2017 and it was unannounced. At this inspection, we found the service remained ‘Good’ overall, although we judged the responsive domain ‘Outstanding’.

The person-centred support plans were extremely effective and reflected people's needs very well; these were regularly reviewed. The professionals we spoke with felt support plans were exceptional in meeting people's needs and staff always updated them following their advice. People were well-supported with meaningful occupations and activities. Relatives of people who used the service and staff had been creative in designing sensory areas where we saw people engaged in activities. Learning logs enabled staff to assess the success of activities for people who used the service. People were enabled to maintain positive family connections and support networks which significantly enhanced the quality of their lives.

Staff responded to people's needs and went 'over and above' to ensure these needs were met. Behaviour management plans were detailed and included least restrictive interventions. All staff were enthusiastic about their role and the quality of care they provided. This meant that people who had previously challenged other services were being successfully supported by an outstanding responsive approach to their individual needs. This had included working closely with relatives to develop a consistent approach for some people and had been very successful.

People were protected from the risk of harm. Safeguarding concerns were appropriately managed. Staff had completed training in relation to safeguarding vulnerable people from abuse and understood their responsibilities to report any abuse they became aware of. Checks and auditable processes were used to ensure people’s finances were safeguarded.

Individual risk assessments for people who used the service were in place. These identified potential risks and were sufficient in guiding staff to support people safely. The service was safe, clean and tidy. Staff told us the infection control practices were good and we saw the service was well-maintained. Equipment was serviced regularly and there were systems in place for reporting issues.

People’s health and nutritional needs were met and they had access to a range of professionals in the community for advice, treatment and support. Staff monitored people’s health and wellbeing and responded quickly to any concerns. People received their medicines as prescribed and there were safe systems to manage medication.

People who used the service 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 supported

Inspection carried out on 29 September 2015

During a routine inspection

Pennine Resource Centre is a two storey building registered with the Care Quality Commission [CQC] to provide care and accommodation for up to 19 adults who have a learning or physical disability. The home offers permanent placements to 13 people who have a learning disability and six respite bedrooms situated on the first floor for people who have a physical disability. The service is situated close to shops and local amenities.

This inspection took place on 29 September 2015 and was unannounced. The service was last inspected on 7 October 2013 inspection and was meeting all the regulations assessed during the inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards (DoLS), and to report on what we find. DoLS are a code of practice to supplement the main Mental Capacity Act 2005. These safeguards protect the rights of adults by ensuring if there are restrictions on their freedom and liberty these are assessed by appropriately trained professionals. The registered manager had a good understanding about these and when they should be applied. However, there had been only one DoLS application made on behalf of the people who used the service, even though the other people had been assessed and identified as meeting the criteria for DoLS applications.

These issues meant that the registered provider was not meeting the requirements of the law regarding the need to obtain lawful consent for the people who used the service. You can see what action we told the registered provider to take at the back of the full version of this report

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities for reporting safeguarding or whistleblowing concerns about the service and training had been provided to them, to ensure they knew how to recognise signs of potential abuse.

Staff were provided in suitable numbers to ensure the needs of the people who used the service were met. Recruitment checks were carried out on new staff to ensure they were safe to work with vulnerable people and did not pose an identified risk to their wellbeing.

People’s medicines were administered as prescribed by their GP and staff had received training in this subject. Systems were in place to ensure people’s medicines were administered safely.

People were provided with a wholesome and varied diet of their choosing. Staff monitored people’s dietary needs and involved health care professionals when required. We found people received care in a person-centred way with care plans describing people’s preferences for care and staff followed this guidance.

Training was provided to staff which was relevant to their role and equipped them to meet the needs of the people who used the service. The registered manager encouraged and supported staff to gain further qualifications and develop their experience.

We observed positive staff interactions with the people they cared for. Privacy and dignity was respected and staff supported people to be independent and to make their own choices. When people were assessed by staff as not having the capacity to make their own decisions, meetings were held with relevant others to discuss options and make decisions in the person’s best interest.

A range of activities were provided to people who used the service and they were given the opportunity to choose those they wished to participate in. Trips out into the community, holidays and theatre trips were also available.

People who used the service and their relatives knew they could raise concerns or complaints if they wished. These were investigated and the outcome shared with the complainant.

People lived in a well led and inclusive service; the registered manager sought their views about how it was run. The registered manager undertook audits which ensured people lived in a safe environment where their health and welfare was monitored and upheld. Staff were supported and encouraged to achieve excellence, systems were in place which identified short falls in the service and how these should be improved.

Inspection carried out on 7 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service including observing care practices. Some people who used the service had complex needs and were not able to verbally communicate their views and experiences to us.

We observed staff offering care and support to people during the tea time period and this was undertaken sensitively and at a pace suitable to the person who used the service.

We saw that choice was offered to people and staff understood the needs of the people they supported. Information about the service had been developed in an easy read format with symbols, which helped those who could not read written text.

People who used the service in order to access the respite care facility told us that choice was promoted and commented, "They have been friendly and nice to me." We also spoke with a visiting health care professional who confirmed that staff listened to advice given.

We saw the environment was clean and hygienic and there were systems in place to prevent the spread of infection.

We saw that the views of people who used the service and their representatives were sought.

The names of two registered managers appear in this report, one of which was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time.

Inspection carried out on 26 June 2012

During a routine inspection

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service including observing care practices. Some people living at the home had complex needs and were not able to verbally communicate their views and experiences to us.

We observed staff offering care and support to people during the tea time period and this was carried in a warm and accepting way. Throughout our visit we saw that staff had developed positive relationships and communication techniques with people using the service.

We saw that choice was offered to people by the use of pictorial information and this included the service user guide which gave clear information about what the person could expect when living in the home.

People who used the service in order to access the respite care facility told us that choice was promoted and commented, �If I want to stay in bed or in my room then I can do and I am able to make my own decisions� and �There is always a good choice of food on offer and the staff are very good.�

We spoke with people who received a respite service and they told us that the environment was safe and secure. Some comments included, �My room is comfortable� and �The home is always clean.�

People who used the Respite service told us they were happy with the level of care and support they received. They also told us that they were involved and consulted about the support and care they needed and commented, �The staff are very good and there is always someone around.�

People who used the Respite service told us their views and concerns were listened to and commented, �I have no complaints, but if I had I would go to the manager.�

Prior to our visit we spoke with the local authority contracting and commissioning department, who told us they had not carried out a monitoring visit to the home.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)