Penshurst is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to three people living with a learning disability. People lived with the provider in a large house based on four floors. Each person had their own room and there was a choice of communal areas where people could socialise.

The inspection was conducted on 27 October 2017 and was unannounced. At the time of our inspection there were three people living at the home. At our last inspection, in August 2015, the service was rated as Good. At this inspection, we found the service remained Good.

The provider delivered the majority of the care and support themselves. They had developed positive, supportive relationships with people. People were at the centre of all decision making and said they were treated as members of the provider’s family. We observed positive interactions between people and the provider. It was clear they knew each other well and the provider understood people’s needs.

People told us they felt safe and secure at Penshurst. The provider had received appropriate training in a range of subjects, including how to protect people from the risk of abuse. Risks to people’s health and well-being were assessed and managed appropriately.

Medicines were stored securely and managed safely. One person was supported to manage some of their own medicines. Suitable arrangements were in place to deal with emergencies and people knew what to do if the fire alarm activated.

The provider was an experienced social care professional. They met people’s needs effectively and followed legislation designed to protect people’s rights.

People’s nutritional needs were met through a wide choice of meals based on their needs and preferences. Their health and well-being were monitored and they were supported to attend appointments with healthcare specialists.

People were involved in planning the care and support they received and the way the home was run. For example, they were consulted about changes in the use of communal areas of the home.

The provider had developed care plans to help ensure people’s needs were met in a personalised way. They empowered people to make choices and to lead happy, fulfilled lives.

People satisfied with the way the service was run. An appropriate quality assurance system was in place. The provider worked with an external consultant to help make sure they followed best practice and remained compliant with all regulations.

Penshurst is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to three people living with a learning disability. People lived with the provider in a large house based on four floors. Each person had their own room and there was a choice of communal areas where people could socialise.

The inspection was conducted on 27 October 2017 and was unannounced. At the time of our inspection there were three people living at the home. At our last inspection, in August 2015, the service was rated as Good. At this inspection, we found the service remained Good.

The provider delivered the majority of the care and support themselves. They had developed positive, supportive relationships with people. People were at the centre of all decision making and said they were treated as members of the provider’s family. We observed positive interactions between people and the provider. It was clear they knew each other well and the provider understood people’s needs.

People told us they felt safe and secure at Penshurst. The provider had received appropriate training in a range of subjects, including how to protect people from the risk of abuse. Risks to people’s health and well-being were assessed and managed appropriately.

Medicines were stored securely and managed safely. One person was supported to manage some of their own medicines. Suitable arrangements were in place to deal with emergencies and people knew what to do if the fire alarm activated.

The provider was an experienced social care professional. They met people’s needs effectively and followed legislation designed to protect people’s rights.

People’s nutritional needs were met through a wide choice of meals based on their needs and preferences. Their health and well-being were monitored and they were supported to attend appointments with healthcare specialists.

People were involved in planning the care and support they received and the way the home was run. For example, they were consulted about changes in the use of communal areas of the home.

The provider had developed care plans to help ensure people’s needs were met in a personalised way. They empowered people to make choices and to lead happy, fulfilled lives.

People satisfied with the way the service was run. An appropriate quality assurance system was in place. The provider worked with an external consultant to help make sure they followed best practice and remained compliant with all regulations.

During our previous inspection in January 2013 we found appropriate records were not maintained. The provider was unable to demonstrate that care plans or risk assessments were in place. People were not protected from the risk of abuse and there were not enough suitably qualified staff to meet people’s needs. The provider was also unable to demonstrate that people were asked for their views about their care and treatment. The provider wrote to us detailing improvements they would make.

On this occasion we found improvements had been made. Appropriate records were maintained; they were up to date and fit for purpose. We looked at care plans for the three people living at the home. We saw people’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. People told us their needs were met. One said, “They look after me well”.

We looked at the provider’s policy on safeguarding. We saw it had been reviewed recently and was appropriate for a service of this type and size. Staff had received training in safeguarding and knew how to report abuse.

The provider lived at the home and delivered most of the care and support themselves. They were supported by one family member who also lived at the home and another family member who lived nearby. Additional support was provided by a domiciliary care agency which the provider was able to use when required.

The provider gave examples to demonstrate they actively consulted people about their care and treatment on a daily basis. For example, one person had been given the opportunity to move to a room on the ground floor so they could access the community more easily. They told us they had chosen to stay in an upper room where they enjoyed sea views. They said, “I like it up here”.

During our visit we saw that people were being treated with dignity and respect and peoples independence was encouraged. People were spoken to in a respectful way. Discussions with the manager showed us that people were respected and that people were treated with dignity.

People we spoke to told us that the manager and staff were easy to talk to and helpful, and that their privacy was respected whilst they were supported to maintain their independence.

During the inspection we were unable to see evidence that the provider responded appropriately to any allegation of abuse as the manager did not have a safeguarding file. There was not any evidence that risks were being regularly monitored and there was not any evidence that procedures were put in place to minimise risks occurring in the future.

People were supported in promoting their independence and community involvement. People told us that they enjoyed going out for walks, going to cafes and pubs. However we did not see evidence of this in peoples care plans, peoples care plans were brief, the manager told us that peoples up to date care plans were on the computer system that had crashed and because of this peoples care plans could not been accessed. We requested that the care plans for people were sent onto us as soon as the computer system is working, the manager agreed to do this.

We spoke with all the people who lived at Penshurst. They all said they were very happy with all aspects of the support and care they received. We were told that the owner was a very kind person who was also a good cook.

People told us they had choice about where in the home they spent their time and what they did. We were told that health professionals were involved if they were unwell.