Archived: Pendarves Residential Care Home

Updated 27 March 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 unannounced inspection took place on 6 March 2018. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.

We reviewed the Provider Information Record (PIR) and previous inspection reports before the inspection. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and the improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed the information we held about the service and notifications of incidents we had received. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

During the inspection we spoke with six people, four visiting relatives and two visiting healthcare professionals. We also spoke with the two owners, one of whom is the registered manager, and three care staff.

We looked at four people’s care plans and associated records, Medicine Administration Records (MAR), three staff recruitment files, staff duty rosters, staff training records and records relating to the running of the service.

Updated 27 March 2018

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of Pendarves Residential Care Home on 6 March 2018. Pendarves is a ‘care home’ that provides care for a maximum of ten adults. 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. At the time of the inspection there were nine people living at the service. The accommodation is spread over two floors. A shared lounge and dining room are on the ground floor. There is a stair lift in place to enable people, who need assistance with mobilising, to access the first floor.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

There was a calm and relaxed atmosphere at the service throughout the day of the inspection visit. People and staff welcomed us into the service and were happy talk to us about their views of living and working there. We observed people had good relationships with staff and each other. Staff interacted with people in a respectful, caring and compassionate manner.

People received care and support that was responsive to their needs because staff were aware of the needs of people who lived at Pendarves. People told us they were happy with the care they received and believed it was a safe environment. Comments from people and visitors included, “I feel safe living here”, “It’s a lovely home, I can’t fault it”, “I fell in love with the place as soon as I saw it” and “I think people here are well cared for.”

Incidents were logged, investigated and action taken to keep people safe. Risks to people's health and safety were assessed and clear plans of care put in place to help keep people safe. These had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. Risk assessments had been kept under review and were relevant to the care provided.

Safe arrangements were in place for the storing and administration of medicines. Staff supported people to access healthcare services such as occupational therapists, GPs, chiropodists, district nurses, opticians and audiologists.

Care plans contained personalised information about the individual person’s needs and wishes and people were involved in the planning and reviewing of their care. People’s care plans gave direction and guidance for staff to follow to help ensure people received their care and support in the way they wanted.

People were supported to eat a healthy and varied diet. Comments from people about their meals included, “I really enjoyed the meal today” and “The food is always good.”

People were able to take part in a range of group and individual activities. These included bingo, card games, exercises and pamper sessions. Staff also supported people to go out regularly into the community to visit local attractions and shops.

Management and staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff on duty to meet people’s needs in a timely manner. Staff knew how to recognise and report the signs of abuse. Staff were supported through a system of induction, training, supervision and staff meetings. This meant they developed the necessary skills to carry out their roles. There were opportunities for staff to raise any concerns or ideas about how the service could be developed.

Management were viewed positively and everyone we spoke with described the management of the service as open and approachable. Staff had a positive attitude and told us the management team provided strong leadership. Staff told us they felt supported by the management commenting,

“The owners are really approachable and they are always here” and “The owners always listen to our ideas and suggestions.”

The service had a suitable complaints procedure. People and their relatives said they felt staff and management were approachable, would deal with any concerns appropriately, and did not feel they would face any repercussions if they made a complaint. There were effective quality assurance systems in place to make sure that any areas for improvement were identified and addressed.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.