CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Pennefather Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, protective equipment, testing, visiting arrangements and the management of COVID-19 staffing pressures. Minor hygiene issues were fixed straight away.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Pennefather Court was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and visiting arrangements, with minor hygiene issues fixed straight away.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 21 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, arranging testing, managing visiting and admissions, and keeping its infection control policy up to date. Staff had access to protective equipment and had been trained to use and dispose of it.
The home was clean and well ventilated. Inspectors found minor hygiene issues, including no paper towel dispenser in one bathroom and mugs and drinking water in the laundry. These were dealt with during the inspection.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not provide a full quality rating for the home or a rated score for the five areas of care.
Visiting arrangements
Visitors could have a rapid test on arrival or show evidence of a completed test. The home also had a separate visiting area and arrangements for essential care givers.
“Visitors were asked to provide evidence of completing a lateral flow (rapid result) swab test on the day of the visit, or they could have one carried out on arrival.” from the report
Protective equipment
Protective equipment was available around the home, and staff had training in how to use and dispose of it.
“Staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) to protect themselves and others from the risk of infection.” from the report
Clean and ventilated home
Inspectors found the home clean and well ventilated. The home also carried out audits to check standards.
“The home was kept clean and there was good ventilation.” from the report
Testing and outbreak planning
Staff and residents had regular testing. Inspectors were assured that the home could prevent or manage infection outbreaks.
“There had been regular testing of staff and people living at the home.” from the report
Minor hygiene issues
minorInspectors found a missing paper towel dispenser in one bathroom and mugs and drinking water in the laundry. These issues were addressed during the inspection.
“We found some minor hygiene issues which were attended to straight away.” from the report
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now, and how are they checked?
- 02How can families visit, and are rapid tests or other requirements still used?
- 03How would the home manage an outbreak or a new admission safely?
- 04How many staff are available now, and what happens if COVID-19 or other illness causes staffing pressures?
- 05What arrangements are available for an essential care giver to visit or help with care?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it did not provide ratings for the wider areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 March 2022 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, October 2018
Pennefather Court rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care but ongoing concerns about fire safety and staffing levels.
Inspectors visited without warning on 18 and 19 September 2018. They spoke with eight people, staff, managers, relatives and health professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines, staff recruitment and training records, maintenance records and safety certificates.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People described kind and caring staff, meaningful activities and support with their health, choices and daily lives.
There were still concerns about fire safety. Some fire doors were not routinely shutting, the fire risk assessment had not been signed off, and staff did not always have easy access to fire guidance. People also said there were times when staffing levels were too low.
The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement in 2017 and had breached regulations then. Inspectors found that several earlier safety problems had been improved, but fire safety work had not all been completed.
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors observed positive relationships, laughter and smiles, and found that people's dignity was respected.
“People were supported by staff who had developed a kind, compassionate and caring relationship with them.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected individual needs, preferences and communication styles. People had named keyworkers and regular opportunities to discuss their care.
“People received a personalised service.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People were supported to take part in activities inside the home and in the local community. Each person had a weekly one-to-one session with staff.
“People told us they had opportunities to undertake meaningful activities, both within the home and the local community.” from the report
Safe medicines and recruitment
Medicine records were completed appropriately and medicines were audited. Staff recruitment checks included employment history, references and criminal record checks.
“Medicine were managed safely within the home.” from the report
Improvement since 2017
The home had addressed several earlier safety failures, including risks linked to choking, falls and unlocked storage areas. Inspectors said the home was no longer in breach of the earlier safe-care regulation.
“We found the service had made improvements and we have been satisfied the provider is no longer in breach of Regulation 12” from the report
Fire safety work incomplete
seriousSome fire doors were not routinely shutting, the fire risk assessment had not been signed off, and not all personal evacuation plans were initially kept in the fire emergency box. Inspectors recommended that fire risk assessments be readily available to staff.
“Some fire doors were not routinely shutting. Remedial action had been identified, however, all the required actions had not been completed.” from the report
Staffing levels
needs fixingPeople and a relative raised concerns about low staffing levels. Managers said they were recruiting and covering gaps with agency staff and their own work.
“People told us there were times when they felt there was not enough staff.” from the report
- 01Have all the fire door repairs now been completed, and has the fire risk assessment been signed off?
- 02Where can every staff member find the current fire evacuation guidance and each person's personal emergency evacuation plan?
- 03What staffing level is planned for each shift, and how are gaps covered when staff are unavailable?
- 04How do you check that people are not left in bed for too long when staffing levels are lower?
- 05How are actions from water safety and other safety assessments tracked through to completion?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating, with checks of care, medicines, staffing, records, maintenance and safety systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 October 2018 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 Pennefather Court
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 July 2014.
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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of Buckinghamshire
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 £1,300 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.