CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Penhayes
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were considered safe. Staff understood safeguarding, risk assessments guided support, staffing was sufficient, and medicines were managed safely, although not all staff had completed fire drills at the required intervals.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and understood people's health, communication and behavioural needs. People received suitable food, healthcare and support under the Mental Capacity Act, although some staff supervision was overdue.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed to be kind, respectful and attentive. They respected privacy, offered choices and adapted communication to people's needs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and personal. People were offered activities of their choice, supported to contact family and helped to access healthcare in ways suited to them.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found strong leadership, open communication and effective quality checks. The home reviewed incidents and restraint, sought people's views and used action plans to make improvements.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Penhayes was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some fire-drill, supervision and building maintenance issues to address.
This was an unannounced inspection on 23 January 2019. The inspector observed daily care, spoke with staff and contacted relatives, health professionals and commissioners. Records about care, medicines, staffing, incidents and quality checks were also reviewed.
Inspectors found that people were safe and supported by staff who understood their complex needs. Medicines were managed safely, staffing levels met people's needs, and staff supported people with food, healthcare, activities and family contact.
Care was described as respectful and person-centred. Staff supported people's choices and worked to reduce restrictions where possible. The home had clear care plans, regular reviews and systems for learning from incidents and complaints.
The overall rating and all five question ratings were Good. This means the inspection found the service was meeting the relevant standards, although some improvements were identified. The rating was unchanged from the previous inspection in 2016.
Safe medicines practice
Staff were trained and checked as competent to give medicines. Inspectors found that medicines were managed safely overall.
“Medicines were managed safely ensuring people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Skilled support
Staff knew people well and understood their health, communication and behavioural needs. Training was tailored to the people living in the home.
“Staff were competent in their roles and had a good knowledge of the individuals they supported which meant they could effectively meet their needs.” from the report
Respectful care
Staff respected people's privacy, choices and wishes. Inspectors saw friendly and proactive interactions.
“We observed that staff were friendly and proactive in their interactions with people.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were supported to take part in activities they chose, with risk assessments and planning used where needed.
“People were supported with regular activities of their choosing.” from the report
Quality oversight
The home had checks covering care, medicines, staffing, the environment and safety. Shortfalls were recorded in action plans and followed up.
“There were effective quality assurance arrangements in place to monitor care and plan ongoing improvements.” from the report
Fire-drill arrangements
needs fixingNot all staff had completed a fire drill at the required frequency. The manager sought advice after the inspection and said this would be addressed.
“It was noted that not all staff had participated in a fire drill at the required intervals.” from the report
Overdue supervision
needs fixingSome staff had not received supervision on time. A plan was in place to catch up with these meetings.
“They were aware that some staff were overdue and a plan was in place to address this.” from the report
Building condition
minorSome areas needed refurbishment and carpets were heavily stained. A programme of redecoration, kitchen work and carpet replacement was due to start in March 2019.
“Some areas of the home would benefit from a refurbishment and carpets being replaced due to heavy staining.” from the report
Expired medicine found
minorInspectors found one bottle of expired medicine. It was removed during the inspection because the person was no longer taking it.
“There was a bottle of medicines that had expired.” from the report
- 01What has been done to ensure every staff member completes a fire drill at least once a year?
- 02Are all staff now receiving supervision on time, and how is this monitored?
- 03What refurbishment work was completed after the planned March 2019 programme, including the stained carpets?
- 04How are restrictions, restraint and close supervision agreed, reviewed and reduced where possible?
- 05How would you support my relative to take part in activities and attend healthcare appointments safely?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five rated areas; inspectors observed care, spoke with staff and professionals and relatives, and checked records. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 February 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, September 2016
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with strong management.
This was an unannounced inspection. Inspectors visited on 9 August 2016 and returned on 10 and 24 August to complete their checks. They observed care, spoke with eight staff, three relatives and five health and social care professionals, and reviewed care files, staff records and service records.
The inspectors found that people were safe and that medicines, staffing and recruitment were managed properly. Staff understood people's needs, received training and worked with health professionals. People were supported to make choices, take part in activities and maintain relationships with family and friends.
The report describes caring staff, personalised care plans and regular reviews. It also found an open management style, staff development and checks that led to improvements. This was the home's first inspection since registering as an adult social care service, and all five areas were rated Good.
Personalised support
Care plans were detailed and reflected people's preferences, communication and changing needs. Staff used this information to provide consistent support.
“Care plans reflected people's health and social care needs and demonstrated that families and health and social care professionals were involved.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff supported people with empathy and respected their privacy, dignity and independence. They adapted communication to each person's way of expressing themselves.
“Staff relationships with people were caring and supportive. Staff spoke confidently about people's specific needs and how they liked to be supported.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received a wide range of training and regular supervision. The training covered areas linked to people's needs, including autism, positive behaviour support and health conditions.
“Staff received a range of training, which enabled them to feel confident in meeting people's needs and recognising changes in people's health.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home involved relatives, advocates and health and social care professionals in reviews and decisions about people's care.
“The review lasted two hours, was in depth and the team fully explored all areas of concern and potential solutions to issues.” from the report
Positive improvements
The report says the service had improved since its previous registration as a hospital. It also found that incident learning and quality checks led to changes.
“This inspection found that positive changes had been made to the service since its inspection as a hospital.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative's particular communication needs and help them make decisions about their care?
- 02What would happen if my relative became anxious or showed behaviour that could put them or others at risk?
- 03How would you involve our family and relevant professionals in care reviews and best-interest decisions?
- 04How would you make sure my relative receives the right health appointments, medicines and follow-up support?
- 05What activities and community opportunities would be available, based on my relative's interests and preferences?
This was the home's first adult social care inspection and it covered all five CQC questions; inspectors reviewed two people's care files and spoke with people, staff, relatives and health and social care professionals. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 September 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 Penhayes
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016
Location report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,020 to £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.