You are here

Penn House Residential Home Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 August 2018

This inspection took place on the 06 August 2018 and was unannounced. This was the first inspection of this service since registering with the Care Quality Commission on 17 February 2017.

Penn House Residential Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Penn House is registered to provide accommodation for up to 24 people. At the time of inspection there were 23 people living at the home. Penn House is arranged over two floors, the second floor was for people who were more independent. Many of the people living at Penn House are living with dementia.

There was 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.’

The provider had audits in place which were used to drive improvement within the home. However, where feedback from people was sought, this information had not been used to identify actions to improve the service for people. We also found that where people had raised verbal issues or concerns, although these were dealt with, there was no evidence of the provider taking any learning for improvements to minimise the chance of things going wrong again in the future.

People told us they felt safe and were happy living at the home. People’s individual risks were assessed and minimised because staff knew people’s needs well. People were safe from the risk of harm because staff knew how to spot signs of abuse and how to report concerns. People received their medication as prescribed and staff were trained to give medication safely. There was enough staff to meet people’s physical needs.

People were supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and were aware of the importance of consent. People’s nutritional needs were met and people had access to health professionals when required. The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities to submit and update Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications.

People were supported by kind and caring staff. People told us they were encouraged to be as independent as possible. Staff ensured they protected people’s privacy and dignity. There was a homely, relaxed feel to the home and relatives and friends were able to visit freely.

People were involved the assessment and review of their care. People’s care records detailed their individual needs and preferences and staff had a good knowledge of these. People were supported to engage in meaningful personalised activities but staff did not have the time sit and chat to people. However, people and relatives told us staff did not have the time to sit and talk to people.

People and relatives knew how to complain and felt confident doing so. We saw people and relatives approach the registered manager’s office to discuss any concerns or to have a general conversation.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management team and felt able to approach them. The provider had strong links with the local community and professionals.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 August 2018

The service was safe.

People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff had a good knowledge of how to spot signs of abuse and report concerns. There was enough staff to keep people safe.

Risks to people were reduced because staff knew what they were and how to minimise them. People received their medication as prescribed.

People were protected from the risk of infection because the home was kept clean and tidy.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 August 2018

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs.

People�s consent was sought by staff before they provided care and support.

People�s nutritional needs and preferences were met. People had access to relevant professionals when required.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 August 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by kind and caring staff.

People were supported to communicate in their preferred way and were supported to make choices. People�s cultural and religious needs were met.

People were encouraged to be as independent as possible. people�s privacy and dignity was maintained.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 August 2018

The service was responsive.

People had activities they could engage in. However, there were periods where people were not stimulated and staff did not have time to sit and chat to people.

People and their relatives were kept up to date about changes to people�s needs and people�s care records reflected changes.

People and relatives knew how to complain and felt confident doing so.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 August 2018

The service was well-led.

People�s and relatives feedback was sought but had not been used to drive improvements within the home.

There were audits in place that were used to drive improvement and reduce reoccurrence.

People and relatives spoke positively about the registered manager.