• Care Home
  • Care home

Penny Farthing House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Fernhill Lane, New Milton, Hampshire, BH25 5SX (01425) 611840

Provided and run by:
Autism Unlimited limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 20 June 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 15 May 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

At this inspection we did not request a Provider Information Return before the inspection. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give us some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We checked other information we held about the home including previous inspection reports and notifications. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

During the inspection we spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager, and three support staff. We looked at a range of records which included the care records for three people, medicines records and recruitment records for four support staff. We looked at other records in relation to the management of the service, such as health and safety, minutes of staff meetings and quality assurance records.

Whilst we chatted with two of the young people using the service, due to difficulties communicating verbally, or their anxieties about speaking with us, we were not able to seek in any detail their views about the care and support they received. We observed interactions between staff and people. Following the inspection, we received feedback from five relatives. We also obtained the views from two internal and two external healthcare professionals.

Overall inspection


Updated 20 June 2018

The inspection took place on the 15 May 2018 and was unannounced. Autism Wessex are a charitable organisation delivering education, support and care services to people on the autistic spectrum. They operate in Dorset, Hampshire and Somerset. Penny Farthing House is a residential home provided by Autism Wessex and provides accommodation and support with personal care for young people of both sexes on the autistic spectrum with associated needs, and who may, at times, display behaviours which challenge.

Penny Farthing House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Penny Farthing House can accommodate up to four people in one adapted building. At the time of our inspection four people were living at the home. The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

We last inspected this service on 23 April 2015 and we identified one area where improvement was required in respect of decision making not being underpinned by the completion of a mental capacity assessment. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and mental capacity assessments were now in place for all aspects of care.

Relative told us their loved ones were safe staying at Penny Farthing House and risks to people were minimized through risk assessments. These covered activities and associated health and safety issues both within the home and in the community. There were plans in place for foreseeable emergencies.

Relevant recruitment checks were conducted before staff started working at the home to make sure they were of good character and had the necessary skills. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to identify, prevent and report abuse. There were enough staff to keep people safe.

Although some of the young people could display behaviours which challenged. Staff were knowledgeable about the complex needs of the people using the service. They completed a wide range of training and felt it supported them in their job role.

People are 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 place in the service supported this practice.

People were supported to take their medicines safely by suitably trained staff. Medication administration records (MAR) confirmed people had received their medicines as prescribed.

People received varied meals including a choice of fresh food and drinks. Staff were aware of people’s likes and dislikes and went out of their way to provide people with what they wanted.

Staff sought consent from people before providing care or support. The ability of people to make decisions was assessed in line with legal requirements to ensure their liberty was not restricted unlawfully. Decisions were taken in the best interests of people. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives.

New staff completed an induction designed to ensure they understood their new role before being permitted to work unsupervised. Staff received regular support and one to one sessions or supervision to discuss areas of development.

People were cared for with kindness and compassion. Care plans provided comprehensive information about how people wished to receive care and support. This helped ensure people received personalised care in a way that met their individual needs.

People were involved in their care plans and reviews. People were supported and encouraged to make choices and had access to a range of activities. Staff knew what was important to people and encouraged them to be as independent as possible.

A complaints procedure was in place. Regular audits of the service were carried out to assess and monitor the quality of the service. Staff felt supported by the registered manager and staff meetings took place.