CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Five Penny House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm, with suitable staffing, risk assessments, safeguarding systems and infection control. Guidance for two people's medicines to be taken when needed was unclear, but the manager acted on this immediately.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and supported people's health, nutrition, choices and communication needs. Oral health assessments had been completed, but specific oral health plans had not yet been developed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed treating people with warmth, kindness and compassion, and supported their dignity, independence and choices. Inspectors noted one occasion when a person's toileting needs were discussed in front of others.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed, and people were supported to take part in activities and use community services. Goals and outcomes were not always clearly highlighted, and inspectors questioned the amount of pain recording required.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a new registered manager, clear values and systems for monitoring quality and safety. Inspectors found the manager open to feedback and taking action to improve records and the service.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some records and privacy issues needing attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 February 2020. One inspector spoke with two people and seven staff, and reviewed care records, medicine records, staff records and management information. Not everyone living at the home was able to speak with the inspector.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough skilled staff, safe medicine storage, suitable risk assessments, kind interactions and personalised support. People were helped to make choices, use local services and take part in activities they enjoyed.
There were some issues to improve. Guidance for two people's medicines to be taken when needed was unclear, and this was corrected during the inspection. Inspectors also found one privacy concern, care goals were not always clearly highlighted, some recording was excessive, and oral health assessments had not yet been turned into specific plans.
Enough skilled staff
People received support from enough staff with suitable skills and experience. Staff were visible and knew people well.
“People received care and support from the right amount of suitably skilled and experienced staff.” from the report
Kind and reassuring care
Inspectors saw warm, compassionate interactions. Staff reassured people promptly when they became anxious or distressed.
“We observed staff treating people with warmth, compassion and kindness.” from the report
Personalised choices and activities
Support plans reflected people's preferences and communication needs. People were helped to access community activities, trips and holidays.
“People were supported to access activities they enjoyed. People accessed the community regularly to join activities such as trips to the seaside and shopping.” from the report
Responsive management
The new manager had a clear vision and acted quickly when inspectors identified problems. Quality checks were used to support improvements.
“A quality assurance system was in place to review the service and drive improvement.” from the report
Medicine guidance
needs fixingTwo people did not have clear instructions for medicines taken when needed. The manager contacted the local GP and addressed this straight away.
“Two people did not have clear guidance on 'as and when required' medicines.” from the report
Privacy and dignity
minorInspectors saw one occasion when staff discussed someone's toileting needs in front of other people. The manager said staff would be reminded to use respectful language.
“We observed one occasion of staff not considering someone's dignity when talking in front of others about someone’s toileting needs.” from the report
Care records
minorIdentified goals and outcomes were not always clearly highlighted in care plans. The manager said this would be addressed.
“We found that identified goals and outcomes weren't always consistently highlighted.” from the report
Excessive recording
needs fixingStaff recorded twice each day whether someone appeared to be in pain, even though the person did not generally experience pain. Inspectors were told this could reduce time spent with people.
“Staff were recording twice daily on a separate sheet whether they thought someone was in pain.” from the report
Oral health plans
minorPeople attended dentists and opticians and oral health assessments had been completed, but these had not yet been developed into specific plans.
“The service had carried out oral health assessments but were yet to develop these into specific plans.” from the report
- 01What guidance is now in place for each person's medicines taken when needed, and how is it checked?
- 02How do staff protect people's privacy when discussing personal care needs?
- 03How are each person's goals and outcomes recorded and reviewed?
- 04What recording is still required about pain, and how do you make sure it does not reduce time spent with residents?
- 05Have individual oral health plans now been developed from the assessments?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises; the previous overall rating was Good, published in July 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 March 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, August 2017
Five Penny House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but noted a worn dining room floor and limited wheelchair-accessible transport.
This was a comprehensive, announced inspection carried out on 3, 4 and 13 July 2017. The inspector spent time with all five people living in the home, spoke with staff and the manager, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines were managed safely, staffing was suitable, risks were reviewed, and staff were trained and supported.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff understood people's communication and support needs, encouraged independence, supported healthcare appointments and provided personalised care plans. The home had a welcoming atmosphere and an effective system for checking its quality.
The home remained Good, matching its rating at the previous inspection in May 2015. Inspectors noted that the dining room floor was worn and marked, some walls needed repainting, and staff wanted better wheelchair-accessible transport for outings.
Safe medicines management
Inspectors found that medicines were stored securely, given safely and recorded accurately. Staff training and competency checks were up to date.
“Medicine records we checked had been completed accurately.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People had warm relationships with staff. Staff respected privacy and dignity, listened to people and supported their choices.
“We saw that staff were kind, caring, polite and supportive.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records gave clear guidance about each person's needs, preferences, communication and wellbeing. Staff encouraged people to be as independent as they wanted.
“Care records about each person were very descriptive and showed how each person needed to be supported as an individual.” from the report
Effective management
Staff described the manager as approachable and supportive. Quality checks led to action plans and improvements.
“There was an effective quality assurance system in place to monitor key areas of the service such as accidents, incidents, safeguarding concerns and staffing issues.” from the report
Worn dining room and walls
minorThe dining room floor was worn and marked, and some walls needed repainting. The manager said this had been reported and was due to be addressed.
“However, the dining room floor was worn and marked and some walls needed repainting.” from the report
Limited accessible transport
needs fixingStaff and a representative said that a lack of wheelchair-accessible transport sometimes made it difficult to take people out. They felt the home would benefit from its own minibus.
“Staff told us they would like to take people out more as this was sometimes difficult due to a lack of wheelchair accessible transport in the area.” from the report
Complaints may be hard to understand
needs fixingAlthough complaints information was available in picture format, inspectors said most people would still not understand the complaints process because of their complex needs.
“The information for people was in pictorial format but due to the complex needs of the people using the service most would still not understand the concept of a complaints process.” from the report
- 01Has the worn dining room floor been repaired and have the walls been repainted?
- 02What wheelchair-accessible transport is now available for outings?
- 03How do you identify when someone with limited communication is unhappy or wants to complain?
- 04How are people and their representatives involved in reviewing their care plans?
- 05How do you check that medicines continue to be recorded accurately and stored safely?
This was a comprehensive inspection of all five quality areas, carried out over visits on 3 and 4 July with views sought from a representative on 13 July 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 August 2017 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Five Penny House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 December 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
43 live-in carers within about an hour of Hartlepool
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £970 to £1,120 a week. 40 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.