Pencombe Hall

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has improved to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People’s care plans were personalised and specific to people’s needs, choices and wishes. Information about people included how they chose to be supported, people who were important to them and their hobbies and interests. Some activities had been adapted to meet the specific needs of people, considering their choices and preferences. One staff member shared “People are encouraged to take an active role in shared interests, including wildlife spotting, with some contributing to this alongside a resident ornithologist. Together, they helped to create a digital fact file, promoting engagement, skill development, and a sense of achievement”. Where people required specific information in their care plan in relation to their clinical, communication and nutrition needs, these were detailed and tailored to people’s individual needs.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People were supported to access the local community on a regular basis. People and relatives told us they visited a local pub once a month for a meal. People also visited garden centres and local towns when themed events occurred. The service holds an annual fete which is popular within the local community, where people were encouraged to take part. The service has strong links with the local primary school who visited regularly. One person told us, “The children came at Christmas and the vicar visits regularly”. A relative shared, “They do meaningful things, they are seeing life, engaging. Staff have enriched (relatives) life”. People living at the service had recently started a pen pal letter exchange with the children and had held Easter bunny competitions. People had also made the children individual Christmas boxes which were greatly received. There was a regular ‘Pat a dog’ which visited the service, and there had been occasions when a pony had visited. The service had a resident cat who was very popular, people told us they really enjoyed spending time with him.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff provided information in the most appropriate way for people. We saw multiple examples of pictorial aid support, as well as the use of white boards for a person with hearing difficulties and technology for people who enjoyed interactive games. Staff told us “For one person, using the tablet for sensory games brought back fond memories of owning large tropical fish while living in a different country. Moments like these encourage reminiscence, conversation, and a continued sense of identity and personal history”. There were notice boards in communal areas of the service which provided information to people about upcoming events and information about the service. Relatives told us they were updated of any changes in relation to their loved one’s care needs and communication with the service was consistently good. The registered manager and leaders demonstrated good knowledge of Accessible Information Standards AIS.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People preferred to share their feedback, choices and preferences on the service during residents’ meetings. The registered manager had previously tried to gather feedback through surveys which had only provided limited responses, by gathering feedback through regular meetings this had been more beneficial. The meetings reflected on the actions achieved from the last meeting and focused on a new set of activities and tasks for the coming months. We saw evidence people's choices were actioned. For example, in January 2026, people had asked to do some flower arranging, during our visits we saw people had participated in a flower arranging session which was displayed in the dining area. People had asked for a greenhouse, which had been purchased. Annual surveys were sent to relatives and staff, and healthcare professionals could share their views with a survey which was located in the entrance of the building. All feedback received had been positive. Relatives told us they knew how to raise a complaint should they need to, and felt any concerns would be listened to and acted upon.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Care plans provided staff with an overview of people’s needs and any barriers they might experience in receiving care, support and treatment. For example, mobility and accessibility or communication barriers. External health professionals told us staff were prompt to ask for additional support when needed and were responsive to any changes or amendments they suggested with people’s care planning. There was an on-call system in place to provide support to people and staff if needed.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. The provider ensured people were supported to have equitable outcomes. The registered manager was in the process of exploring ways for people to have hearing assessments within the service, where they found community healthcare settings too overwhelming. People and their relatives reported no concerns related to discrimination or unequal experiences. Staff had completed the relevant mandatory training requirements.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Care plans demonstrated people’s choices and wishes for their end-of-life pathway, and where appropriate family members had been involved. People had ReSPECT forms in place. ReSPECT stands for Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment and ensures their personal wishes are followed. These were reviewed regularly.