CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Pendle View
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some areas were unclean and there were poor infection control practices, including unsuitable hand towels and missing towels in people's rooms. Medicines, risk management, staffing levels and recruitment were otherwise found to be safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff understood people's needs and supported their dietary, mental and physical health. The home followed the Mental Capacity Act, although two applications for authorisation to restrict people's liberty had not yet received a decision.
- Caring?
- Good
- People liked the staff and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff encouraged choice, independence and involvement in decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care reflected people's needs, risks and preferences. People had choices and activities, although inspectors said the range of activities was quite limited.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management checks were not always accurate or independent, and identified repairs and improvements were not completed promptly. There were occasions when no senior member of staff or manager was available to oversee the home.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but problems with cleanliness and management oversight put people at risk.
This was a planned inspection on 4 June 2019. One inspector visited the home, spoke with people, staff and the manager, reviewed care and medicines records, and contacted relatives and community professionals.
People were happy with their care. Staff supported people's health, choices, independence and activities. The ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were Good.
Inspectors found that some parts of the home were unclean, with poor infection control practices. They also found that audits did not reliably identify problems, some improvements were delayed, and there was not always a senior member of staff available.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were also Requires Improvement. This was worse than the previous Good rating published in December 2016.
Kind support
People liked the staff. Inspectors saw staff communicating respectfully, showing patience and reassuring people when they were upset or confused.
“We observed staff communicating with people in a friendly and respectful way and found they were patient when supporting people.” from the report
Choice and independence
Staff involved people in everyday decisions and encouraged them to develop life skills such as cooking, shopping and laundry.
“Staff encouraged people to do what they could and develop life skills, such as preparing meals, shopping and laundry.” from the report
Health support
Staff supported people's physical and mental health and worked with health and social care professionals when extra help was needed.
“Staff supported people to meet their healthcare needs and referred people to a variety of community healthcare professionals to ensure they received the support they needed.” from the report
Medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were administered as prescribed. Staff who gave medicines had training and had been assessed as competent.
“Staff managed people's medicines safely and administered people's medicines as and when prescribed.” from the report
People's views
People were asked about their care through meetings and surveys. The home acted on some suggestions, including changes to menus.
“People were encouraged to raise concerns and make suggestions, and action was taken in response to their comments, for example changes to the menus.” from the report
Cleanliness and infection control
seriousSome areas smelled stale or unclean. Inspectors found poor cleaning, fabric hand towels in shared toilets and no towels at some bedroom basins. This created a risk of harm.
“The provider's failure to ensure people were protected from the risks associated with poor infection prevention and control, placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits did not accurately show the home's condition, did not always cover bedrooms and bathrooms, and did not ensure that problems were fixed promptly.
“The provider failed to have effective oversight of the service. They failed to ensure people were living in a safe environment and staff carried out their responsibilities as they should.” from the report
Limited senior cover
needs fixingThe manager and deputy manager were away from the home for much of the week. At times, there was no senior staff member or manager available to oversee care.
“There were occasions when there was no senior support worker or manager available to oversee staff and ensure people were being supported appropriately.” from the report
Improvements taking too long
needs fixingRepairs, redecoration and other improvements had been raised repeatedly but were not always completed. Plans often had no timescales.
“A number of the issues were raised repeatedly each month, as they had not been completed, including necessary repairs and redecoration.” from the report
Limited activities
minorPeople were happy with the activities, but inspectors said the range available was quite limited.
“The range of activities available was quite limited.” from the report
- 01What has been done to improve cleaning and infection control, including hand towels, bedroom basins, toilets and flooring?
- 02How are cleaning records now checked, and who independently audits them?
- 03Who is the senior person on duty when the registered manager and deputy manager are away?
- 04Have the repairs, redecoration and other property improvements identified in the report been completed, and what timescales were used?
- 05What is the current range of activities, and how are residents involved in choosing them?
This was an announced, planned inspection that assessed all five key questions and looked at both the care provided and the home premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 August 2019 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, December 2016
Pendle View was rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised support, with some home repairs still needed.
Inspectors visited on 27 October and 1 November 2016. The visit was announced at short notice. They spoke with people living in the home and people receiving support in their own homes, staff and managers. They also checked care plans, medicine records, staff files, rotas, complaints and quality checks.
People said they felt safe and were happy with their care. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable medicine arrangements and clear risk assessments. Staff were trained, supervised and knowledgeable about people's needs. People were involved in decisions, healthcare, meals, activities and their support plans.
Inspectors observed respectful and caring relationships. The home had systems for complaints, meetings, surveys and checking quality. Some parts of the home needed repair or redecoration, including damaged furniture and flooring. The provider said most work would be completed by the end of November 2016, and some repairs had already been made during the inspection.
People felt safe and respected
People told inspectors they trusted staff and were happy with how they were treated. Inspectors observed staff being patient, caring and respectful.
“People told us they did not have any concerns about the way they were treated and were happy with the care and support provided.” from the report
Well-trained staff
Staff had training in areas including medicines, safeguarding, mental health and first aid. They also received supervision and support.
“People were supported by staff that were well trained and supervised in their work.” from the report
Personal support
People helped develop and review their own support plans. The plans included personal histories, preferences, routines, goals and ways to provide support.
“People had been involved in the development and review of their support plan.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to take part in activities such as shopping, baking, gardening, community groups, gym sessions and work or volunteering.
“People were supported to take part in a range of suitable activities, employment and volunteer work both inside and outside the home.” from the report
Some areas needed repair
needs fixingInspectors found torn sofas, damaged kitchen worktops, missing cooker knobs, stained carpets and damaged plaster. The provider said most improvements would be completed by the end of November 2016.
“some areas of the home were in need of attention” from the report
Complaint record was incomplete
minorOne complaint had been handled, but the response was not kept on file. The manager dealt with this immediately, but inspectors said it made the outcome difficult to check.
“The response to the complainant was not stored on file which made it difficult to determine the outcome.” from the report
- 01Have all the repairs and redecoration identified during the inspection been completed, including the sofas, carpets, worktops and cooker knobs?
- 02How are complaints recorded now, and how can families see what action was taken and the final outcome?
- 03How do you make sure there are enough familiar staff when someone is receiving support in their own home?
- 04How often are support plans reviewed when a person's mental health, goals or preferences change?
- 05What activities, employment or volunteering opportunities are available now for the person who may move in?
This was an announced inspection of the overall service, covering the home and support provided to people in their own homes; all five ratings were assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 December 2016 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 Pendle View
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- August 2019Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.