Penns Mount residential home offers accommodation with care and support to up to 22 older people. (Nursing care is not provided by the service). At the time of this inspection there were 21 people living there. At the last inspection, the service was rated Good overall. However it was Requires Improvement in Effective because some people were not able to freely move around the premises because of locked doors. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. At the last inspection we noted security locks on doors at the bottom and the top of a staircase may have restricted some people from moving around the home. At this inspection we found people were able to go up and downstairs freely using the lift. Applications had been submitted to the local authority for authorisations where people may have been restricted to keep them safe.

People continued to receive a service that is safe. People were protected from abuse and discrimination. The staff had clear understanding of their responsibilities. The staff recruitment programme was robust to ensure that staff employed were suitable for the job. Sufficient staff were on duty to ensure that appropriate care was given in a planned and timely way. Risk assessments had been undertaken and potential risks were reduced or eliminated. A relative told us, “I have peace of mind after visiting Mum here. I know she is safe and will be well cared for.”

People received an effective service. The staff team were knowledgeable and received regular training and supervision to enable them to carry out their roles effectively. People were supported by staff to maintain their health and well-being and were referred to GP’s and health professionals promptly if a change in their health was noted.

People received an adequate and nutritious diet which took into account their individual tastes and dietary requirements. Comments from people included, “There’s a lovely menu here. It’s always a choice of a hot meal for lunch, and in the evening it’s either hot or sandwiches,” and “The food here is really good. I always eat in my room and that’s my choice”

People received a service that was caring. People who were supported by staff who had built caring and trusting relationships with them. Staff fully understood peoples care needs and treated them with courtesy and dignity. Care was delivered based on personalised care plans, with people (or their representatives) fully involved in decisions about their care.

People continued to receive a service that was responsive to their individual needs. Care plans described how the person wanted to be supported by staff. The plans were reviewed regularly. People could choose to undertake activities and were supported to do so where necessary. People could raise any concerns with the staff / managers, who carried out any appropriate actions. A person told us, “The staff here are very attentive. I don’t ever really need to use my buzzer, but when I do, they always come straight away”. A relative told us, “First impressions count, no smell and so very welcoming. The most striking feature about Penns Mount, however, is just how people centred the staff all are.”

People continued to receive a service that was well-led. The registered manager was available to listen to the views of people using the service and their representatives. The staff reported that they always felt able to approach the registered manager or owner if they had queries or needed support in their work. The registered manager monitored the service through a series of audits and from gaining feedback from the people.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Penns Mount residential home offers accommodation with care and support to up to 22 older people. (Nursing care is not provided by the service). At the time of this inspection there were 21 people living there. At the last inspection, the service was rated Good overall. However it was Requires Improvement in Effective because some people were not able to freely move around the premises because of locked doors. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. At the last inspection we noted security locks on doors at the bottom and the top of a staircase may have restricted some people from moving around the home. At this inspection we found people were able to go up and downstairs freely using the lift. Applications had been submitted to the local authority for authorisations where people may have been restricted to keep them safe.

People continued to receive a service that is safe. People were protected from abuse and discrimination. The staff had clear understanding of their responsibilities. The staff recruitment programme was robust to ensure that staff employed were suitable for the job. Sufficient staff were on duty to ensure that appropriate care was given in a planned and timely way. Risk assessments had been undertaken and potential risks were reduced or eliminated. A relative told us, “I have peace of mind after visiting Mum here. I know she is safe and will be well cared for.”

People received an effective service. The staff team were knowledgeable and received regular training and supervision to enable them to carry out their roles effectively. People were supported by staff to maintain their health and well-being and were referred to GP’s and health professionals promptly if a change in their health was noted.

People received an adequate and nutritious diet which took into account their individual tastes and dietary requirements. Comments from people included, “There’s a lovely menu here. It’s always a choice of a hot meal for lunch, and in the evening it’s either hot or sandwiches,” and “The food here is really good. I always eat in my room and that’s my choice”

People received a service that was caring. People who were supported by staff who had built caring and trusting relationships with them. Staff fully understood peoples care needs and treated them with courtesy and dignity. Care was delivered based on personalised care plans, with people (or their representatives) fully involved in decisions about their care.

People continued to receive a service that was responsive to their individual needs. Care plans described how the person wanted to be supported by staff. The plans were reviewed regularly. People could choose to undertake activities and were supported to do so where necessary. People could raise any concerns with the staff / managers, who carried out any appropriate actions. A person told us, “The staff here are very attentive. I don’t ever really need to use my buzzer, but when I do, they always come straight away”. A relative told us, “First impressions count, no smell and so very welcoming. The most striking feature about Penns Mount, however, is just how people centred the staff all are.”

People continued to receive a service that was well-led. The registered manager was available to listen to the views of people using the service and their representatives. The staff reported that they always felt able to approach the registered manager or owner if they had queries or needed support in their work. The registered manager monitored the service through a series of audits and from gaining feedback from the people.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

We, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) carried out an early morning responsive inspection of Penns Mount Residential Care Home in response to information of concern we had received about the service. The information we had received related to people having to get up earlier than they wished due to the lack of staff on duty. We found that there was no evidence to support the allegations.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask;

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with four people who lived in the home, four staff who supported them, the Registered Manager, and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

During our observations, we saw staff treating people with respect. For example, staff spoke with people in a respectful manner, using their preferred names. Staff responded to people's requests and people appeared to enjoy the interactions and conversations. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. People who lived in the home told us “If anything needs doing, it’s done the next minute” and “It’s been very, very busy, they’ve been short staffed. They’ve got new staff and it seems to be up to scratch now”. The Registered Manager told us that a senior staff member was carrying out a full review of staff duties to ensure there was enough time to carry them out. CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The Registered Manager told us they had not needed to submit any applications since our previous inspection in October 2013. The Registered Manager understood when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

People who lived in the home told us they were happy with the care and support they received. Comments included “I’m not here because I have to be here, I’m here because I want to be” and “the staff are superb”.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We observed that staff were patient and went at the person's pace when assisting them with their mobility, food, and medication. People who used the service told us that staff were not rushed and had time to meet their needs. People’s wishes were respected. People told us they could get up when they wished. Staff told us “If people are asleep we would leave them and go elsewhere” and “People tell you if they want to get up”.

Is the service responsive?

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. The people we spoke with told us they had not needed to make a complaint. They were confident that any issues would be addressed to their satisfaction.

Is the service well-led?

People who lived in the home told us they were asked about the quality of the service. People told us that their comments were listened to and acted upon. One person commented “No complaints at all”. Staff told us they had regular contact with the Registered Manager. Staff commented "The manager is very good, any problems we let them know, and things get actioned” and “If we’re short staffed, the manager works on the floor”. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

This was a scheduled inspection carried out on the 3 October 2013.

There were 21 people living at Penns Mount at the time of our inspection. We spoke with six people who lived at the home, one visitor, four care workers and the manager.

People who lived at the home told us they were well looked after and were happy. One person said "I looked at several homes before deciding that this was the one for me, and I’ve never regretted my decision.”

We saw that care workers respected people's wishes and people told us they felt respected. People's privacy was protected by care workers. For example we saw care workers knocked on doors and waited to be invited in before entering people’s rooms.

Care workers knew what to do if they suspected abuse or poor practice.

Medication was well managed at the home.

One care worker told us "We are provided with loads of training, we have regular supervision and appraisals and we all get on well together here. It’s like a family".

Sufficient numbers of care workers were available during this inspection. However, three people who lived at the home, thought there were times when there were not enough staff available. Care workers told us that the staffing levels "usually" allowed them to meet people’s needs. The provider may wish to note that care workers told us that during the evening they could be “stretched”.

People who lived at the home were aware of how to make a complaint if they were unhappy.

On the day of our visit there were 22 people living at Penns Mount, one person being in hospital. We spoke with 11 people living at the home and two visiting relatives. We also spoke with the manager, three staff members, the cook and looked at four people's care files.

People told us what it was like to live at the home and described how they were treated by staff and their involvement in making choices about their care. They also told us about the quality and choice of food and drink available. This was because this inspection was part of a themed inspection programme to assess whether older people living in care homes are treated with dignity and respect and whether their nutritional needs are met.

The inspection team was led by a CQC inspector joined by Expert by Experience; people who have experience of using services and who can provide that perspective.

Most people currently living at Penns Mount had dementia but were able to express their views and preferences. We spent time observing care and support being delivered. This helped us to see how people spent their time, the type of support they got and whether they had positive experiences.

People we spoke with were very positive about the care and support they received. Comments included “It’s very nice here, the girls are lovely!” and “I’m well looked after and I love the views’’

People we spoke with about the food and choices available to them were overall very positive. One person told us “We can choose what we want and it’s like being in a restaurant, with seconds if you like.”

We found that there were sufficient qualified and experienced staff available to meet people’s needs. We observed care and support being delivered in a kind and respectful way.

We found that records were accurate, up to date and kept confidential.