Archived: Pendarves Residential Care Home

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.

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.

The service had safe arrangements for the management and administration of medicines. It was clear from the medicine records that people received their medicines as prescribed. Some people required prescribed creams Cream were not dated when opened. The registered manager responded immediately to this to ensure staff knew when the cream would expire and was no longer safe to use.

There were infection control measures in place to ensure the service was clean and hygienic. However a sluicing facility which was accessed from a corridor did not have a door in place. Cleaning materials were stored in a cupboard in this space. The registered manager recognised the potential for risk and arranged for a door to be put in place with immediate effect.

There were sufficient numbers of care staff to support the needs of the people living at the service.

People were being cared for by competent and experienced staff. People had choices in their daily lives and their mobility was supported appropriately.

Staff understood the needs of people they supported, so they could respond to them effectively. We observed care being provided and spoke with people who lived at the service, their families and healthcare professionals who visited the home regularly. All spoke positively about the staff and the registered manager. One person told us, “It’s the best place. I am so glad I came to live here. I get all the care I need and more”. A family member told us, “They (staff) are just so patient. As a family we are very pleased”.

Staff recruitment files contained the relevant recruitment checks, to show staff were suitable and safe to work in a care environment, including Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. Pre-employment checks had been completed to help ensure staff had the appropriate skills and knowledge required, to provide care to meet people’s needs. There were enough skilled and experienced staff to help ensure the safety of people who used the service.

Staff supported people to be involved in and make decisions about their daily lives. If people did not have the capacity to make certain decisions the service had systems in place to act in accordance with legal requirements under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This was to protect people and uphold their rights.

People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff had a good understanding of what might constitute abuse and how to report it. All were confident that any allegations would be fully investigated and action would be taken to make sure people were safe.

People told us they knew how to complain and would be happy to speak with the registered manager if they had any concerns.

There were a variety of methods in use to assess and monitor the quality of the service. Meetings and surveys had taken place and showed people were engaged with and listened to.

Equipment and supply services including electricity, fire systems and gas were being maintained. Overall satisfaction with the service was seen to be positive.

We spent time with the providers, reviewed the policies and procedures and took a tour of the home with the provider to observe the changes which had been implemented since the last inspection.

We saw staff were warm, friendly and showed empathy to those they cared for. Conversations we heard were respectful and the language used was suited to the persons' understanding.

Staff were knowledgeable about people's assessed care needs and the action to take to ensure these needs were met. The care plans were in the process of being reviewed and the system for recording the information had been updated.

We had concerns that people were not protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had not been consistently followed by the registered providers.

A robust recruitment procedure was followed to ensure all staff were suitable to work with people who used the service.

We saw privacy and dignity was respected during our visit, and people told us they 'could not be better off anywhere else'. We saw staff talked to people, advised them and offered them assistance. We saw that people's wishes were respected. We saw care workers providing care to people in a professional, good humoured manner. Staff were seen to have meaningful conversations with people while carrying out tasks.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, and people were protected from the risk of infection.

We found staff had received appropriate professional development and accurate and appropriate records were maintained.