Penrose Court

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 inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 did not always make sure people received person-centred care that was in line with their preferences, likes and dislikes. Staff and the management team knew people well and knew how they wanted to be supported. However, at certain times of day, people went for long periods of time without meaningful engagement making it harder to support people in a person-centred way. Some elements of people’s care plans were not person centred in relation to how staff should support them when they felt upset or anxious. These were not detailed enough to fully guide staff how to support people at these times. One relative said, ‘‘I do not always think there is enough for [family member] to do. They always seem to be by themselves when we visit.’’ Staff did not always record people’s care in records in a person-centred way. For example, it was not clear how people were supported to engage in their social interests and pastimes. People who had specific diets had it recorded they ate [pureed meals] rather than what they actually chose to eat. The registered manager acknowledged this was an area that may need some improvement.

However, other aspects of people’s care plans were individualised and detailed how people wanted to be supported in line with their individual likes and dislikes. One person said, ‘‘[Staff] treat me as me.’’ A relative told us, ‘‘[Staff] know [family member] well, they care for them well and are very friendly and caring. There is a full programme of activities, and I am very happy with the service overall.”

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. Staff supported people to get in contact with health professionals if this was necessary. People were supported to be a part of their community and to follow their interests outside of the service if they chose to do so. We were shown evidence of how much people valued and enjoyed these experiences. One person said, ‘‘We go out and about to places like [location] and [location]. It’s nice to be outside.’’ People had a consistent staff team to help promote continuity of care. One relative said, ‘‘[Family member] has built good relationships with the staff team and we know most of them by name. I think [registered manager] has really high standards for the staff team and it is settled now.’’

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff knew how to support people with different communication needs such as using signs or written words to help them understand what was happening throughout the day. Staff took their time when they spoke with people to help make sure they understood what was being communicated with them. There were multiple opportunities where information was shared with people relatives and staff such as meetings and newsletters. The management team made sure information such as policies and procedures were available in easy read and accessible formats. One relative said, ‘‘[Staff] take their time when they are speaking with [family member]. They know it can take them a little while to understand what is going on and this really helps them.’’

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. The management and staff team made sure people, and their relatives were given the opportunity to feed back about their care and support. The management team held meetings with people and relatives to discuss their support and any recent experiences they had which they enjoyed. Staff took time to listen to people as they were being supported throughout the day. However, it was not always clear how people who chose not to attend these opportunities or who had specific support needs, were being supported to formally feedback about the service. The registered manager acknowledged this and planned to introduce regular individual discussions with people to identify how best to capture their feedback. One person said, ‘‘[Management and staff] are very approachable and will always listen to what you have to say.’’ A relative told us, ‘‘The home’s communication is good, they send emails, a monthly newsletter and questionnaires. There are relatives’ meetings, and I think they listen and would take action.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff supported people to contact health professionals such as GP’s or speech and language therapists if this was necessary. They followed professionals’ advice to help make sure people were supported safely. A visiting professional told us, ‘‘There is always a nice feel at [service], and I think this reflects the way staff support and care for people. They take our advice on board and make sure they follow this to the letter.’’

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. People’s outcomes were not always positive or consistent, although they met the expectations of people and their relatives. It was sometimes unclear how people were being supported to discuss what outcomes they wanted to achieve or how staff were supporting them to achieve these. It was also sometimes unclear how people were being supported to follow their identified interests and pastimes. Whilst there were opportunities for people to be involved in social engagement, this did not always interest people, and it was unclear if any alternatives were offered. As a result of sometimes going longer periods of time without staff interaction, people’s experiences at the service were sometimes not as positive as they could be. The registered manager acknowledged this was an area for improvement.

However, we were also shown evidence of people being involved in social events in and out of the service. We also observed several of these during our visits such as a food tasting event and a visiting musical entertainer. These were enjoyed by people and gave them positive experiences. One person said, ‘‘There are a variety of activities. [Staff] have arranged a trip to [location]. They do crafts and there is a choice of films on at the cinema. I go out to the coffee bar and shops close by. I went on a coach tour to [location] that shows how confident I have become since I moved here.” A relative told us, ‘‘The carers know [family member] well. They enjoy the crafts, the painting and bingo. I arranged for [activity] once a week which they like. The carers come in and sit and talk with her. They have a patio outside the bedroom, so I have put some pots of flowers outside for her.”

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. People had been supported to put plans in place for the end of their life. These were very detailed and outlined how people would like to be supported in line with their preferences. Staff knew how to support people with kindness and compassion at this time and knew where to get more support for people if this was needed. Relatives were extremely positive about the way their relatives were cared for at the end of their lives. One relative said, ‘‘The end-of-life care for [family member] was second to none and the carers were so good in looking after all of us during this time and afterwards, always making time to see how we were and have a chat.’’ Another relative told us, ‘‘I could not think of a better place for [family member] to have been when they were [at the end of their life]. The care they received was exemplary.’’