CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Penberth House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People had risk assessments and plans covering their mental and physical health, medical conditions and nutritional needs. Staffing and recruitment were safe, but inspectors found some unexplained gaps in medicines administration records and recommended better auditing.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating, but that rating is not stated in this report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating, but that rating is not stated in this report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating, but that rating is not stated in this report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider had systems to monitor care, update records and involve people in care planning. Staff meetings, training and contact with health and social care professionals supported the service.
What inspectors found, April 2024
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-led care, with a recommendation to improve medicines audits.
This was a focused inspection carried out on 27 October, 24 November and 14 December 2023. Inspectors spoke with two people, staff and managers, reviewed three care records, checked recruitment records and examined how the home was managed.
The home supports up to three people with mental health conditions. Inspectors found people were safe, had care plans covering their needs and were supported by enough suitable staff. Medicines were given safely, but some medicines records had unexplained gaps.
The home was rated Good overall, with Safe and Well-led also rated Good. The Safe and Well-led ratings stayed the same as at the previous inspection in 2017. The other three areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used for the overall rating.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns. Risk assessments and management plans covered known risks.
“People we spoke with said they felt safe living at the service.” from the report
Enough suitable staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff on duty. Recruitment checks, including right-to-work and criminal record checks, were completed.
“The provider ensured there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to provide care and support to people safely.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans identified people's support needs and people were involved in developing them. Staff helped people access education, employment and new skills.
“Each person had an assessment and care plan in place that clearly identified their support needs.” from the report
Good management oversight
Managers used audits, staff meetings and training to monitor care and support improvement. Staff also worked with health and social care professionals when people's needs changed.
“The provider had created a learning culture at the service which improved the people's care experience including the quality of care.” from the report
Medicines records had gaps
needs fixingSome medicines administration records had unexplained gaps. The provider investigated after the inspection, but CQC recommended reviewing medicines audits so problems are found sooner.
“People's medicine administration records (MARs) showed some unexplained gaps in those records.” from the report
- 01What caused the unexplained gaps in medicines administration records, and what checks have been introduced since the inspection?
- 02How often are medicines audits completed, and who reviews the results?
- 03How will you involve my relative in developing and reviewing their care plan?
- 04How would staff support my relative to access education, employment or community activities?
- 05How do staff work with health and social care professionals if my relative's mental health needs change?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried over from the previous inspection when calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 April 2024 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, November 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with earlier recruitment and management problems improved.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 10 October 2017. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with people living there, relatives, staff, managers and health and social care professionals. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, rotas, complaints, incidents and quality checks.
The home supported up to three people with mental health needs. Three people were living there at the time. Inspectors found people were happy, treated with kindness and involved in decisions about their care. Staff understood people's needs and supported their health, independence, activities and relationships.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. At the previous inspection in August 2016, the provider had breached requirements about staff recruitment checks and good governance. Inspectors found these problems had been addressed and the home met the relevant requirements at this inspection.
Kind relationships
People said staff were kind, patient and understanding. Inspectors observed respectful interactions and found that staff knew people's interests and preferences.
“People were supported by staff who knew them well.” from the report
Support for independence
The home helped people work towards more independent living through education, work, budgeting, cooking, laundry and community activities.
“Staff had guidance about the support people required to progress towards independent living.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Staff were trained and assessed as competent to manage medicines. Records, storage and stock checks were found to be accurate.
“Medicines management practices at the service were safe.” from the report
Individual care planning
People, relatives where appropriate and professionals were involved in planning care. Plans were reviewed and updated when needs changed.
“Support plans were up to date and reflected people's needs.” from the report
Improved management
The provider had acted on the problems found at the previous inspection. Inspectors found that the home now met the relevant requirements.
“At this inspection, we checked on these issues and found that the provider had made improvements and now met all the relevant requirements.” from the report
Some tasks needed closer checking
minorRecords showed that some staff tasks were not always completed to a high standard. The manager reminded staff and carried out spot checks, but families may want to ask how this is monitored now.
“some tasks were not always performed to a high standard.” from the report
- 01How do you support each person's mental health and respond if their condition changes?
- 02How do you help people build independence through education, work, budgeting and daily living skills?
- 03How do you check that staff complete all their tasks to the required standard?
- 04How are medicines managed, reviewed and supported when someone is away from the home?
- 05How often are care plans reviewed, and how are families and health professionals involved when needs change?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC areas and checking improvements after breaches found at the August 2016 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 November 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 Penberth House
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 January 2011.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Lewisham
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
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.