You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 6 January 2018

This inspection was carried out on 16 November 2017. This was the first inspection of the service.

Penponds Homecare Ltd is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It delivers care and support to people living with dementia, people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder, people with mental health conditions, people with physical disabilities, and people with sensory impairment. The age of people varies from younger adults to elderly people.

Not everyone using Penponds Homecare Ltd receives regulated activity. The CQC only inspects the service received by people provided with ‘personal care’, help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided. On the day of the inspection Penponds Homecare Ltd provided a service to 29 people, out of whom 23 received the regulated activity of personal care.

The provider valued their staff team and had endeavoured to take steps to retain and develop staff to their full potential. They believed this was the key to delivering high quality, consistent care. A number of measures had been employed to recognise the contribution staff made and this had been appreciated by staff who told us they felt valued and respected.

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.

People received safe care from staff who had been trained to protect people and identify signs of abuse. Risk assessments were implemented and reflected the current level of risk to people. Staff understood their responsibilities to report any concerns and followed the provider's policies in relation to safeguarding and whistleblowing.

Staff praised the communication with the office. They told us that if there were any incidents, lessons would be learned and findings would be immediately communicated to the members of staff.

There were enough staff to keep people safe and appropriate arrangements were in place for emergency staff cover. Recruitment processes were designed to ensure only suitable staff were selected to work with people.

The service used an electronic monitoring system which staff accessed via mobile phones. The system ensured people's most current care plans were available to staff. It also enabled the service to monitor in real time the support people were receiving in relation to personal care, nutrition or medicines administration. As a result, the system for monitoring the quality and safety of care provided to people was efficient and effective.

Staff managed medicines consistently and safely. People received their medicines as prescribed.

Staff received a wide range of training that matched people's needs. Staff were encouraged and supported to develop their skills and knowledge, which improved people's experience of care.

Staff were aware of their duties under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They obtained people's consent before carrying out care tasks and followed legal requirements where people did not have the capacity to consent.

The service demonstrated a strong commitment to promoting people's independence. Staff worked closely with people to build their confidence and help them do more for themselves.

People and relatives were delighted with the kindness and thoughtfulness of staff. People told us the support they received significantly improved their well-being.

The service was extremely responsive to people’s needs and wishes even if the support people needed proved to exceed their contracted hours. People told us that staff went over and above the call of duty. People also said this made a profound

Inspection areas



Updated 6 January 2018

The service was safe.

Staff had a good knowledge of their responsibilities in safeguarding adults from potential abuse and knew how to report any concerns.

Risks in relation to people and the environment were assessed and appropriately managed.

Medicines were administered safely.

Robust recruitment procedures were in place. Staffing numbers met people's needs safely.



Updated 6 January 2018

The service was effective.

Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and how this applied to their daily work.

People were cared for by staff that had received relevant training and had the skills to meet their needs.

All staff were supported in their role through regular supervisions and discussions with their manager.

People's nutritional and healthcare needs were met and people had access to a wide range of healthcare professionals when they needed them.



Updated 6 January 2018

The service was caring.

People felt that staff cared for them and respected their privacy and dignity.

Positive relationships had developed between staff and people.

People were involved in making decisions that affected their lives and care and support needs and staff respected peoples' right to make decisions.



Updated 6 January 2018

The responsiveness of the service was outstanding.

The service went the extra mile in providing people with personalised care in which emphasis was put on the quality of people�s lives and meeting people�s needs and preferences.

The service was extremely flexible and responsive to people's needs.

People using the service and their relatives knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint.



Updated 6 January 2018

The service was well led.

Staff understood the vision and values of the service and knew how to put these into practice. People benefitted from being supported by staff who felt valued and were motivated to provide them with individualised care.

The registered manager led by example. They understood the needs of the people who used the service.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and to promote best practice.