CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Pennings View
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but safety checks and quality monitoring were not reliable enough.
This was an unannounced inspection on 29 and 31 October 2019. The inspector spoke with people living at the home, staff and managers, reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records, and observed care and daily life.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were treated kindly, supported to make choices, helped to build independence and given care that reflected their needs and preferences.
Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that fire door repairs had not been completed, some potential fall and burn hazards remained, medicine storage checks were missing, and accidents and incidents were not properly analysed.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published in May 2017. The provider was told to improve its quality monitoring and send an action plan. CQC said it would monitor progress and return under its reinspection programme.
Kind and respectful care
People and professionals spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff respect privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“People and professionals told us staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Building independence
Staff helped people learn everyday skills and take part in activities. Support focused on choice, control and inclusion.
“Promoting independence was important to staff who supported people to live fulfilled lives.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's preferences, goals and changing needs. Staff acted on what people wanted.
“Care plans were personalised and updated in response to people's changing needs.” from the report
Training and healthcare
Staff had an induction, training and competency checks. People received support to access healthcare and had annual health checks.
“Staff were well trained and skilled. They worked with people to overcome challenges and promote their independence.” from the report
Fire safety repairs delayed
seriousA fault with fire doors had been recorded since June 2019 and had not been fixed. Inspectors said this created a potential fire risk.
“There had been a recorded fault with fire doors not closing since June 2019. This posed a potential fire risk to people.” from the report
Quality checks were not effective
seriousAudits did not identify or resolve several hazards. The home also lacked a reliable system to review accidents and incidents for patterns and learning.
“Quality monitoring systems were not robust within Pennings View. The service did not complete audits of their processes.” from the report
Medicine storage checks missing
needs fixingThe home did not check medicine storage temperatures. This was addressed during the inspection, but medicines were not always managed safely.
“Checks were not carried out to ensure medicines were stored in safe conditions.” from the report
Some physical hazards
needs fixingAn old sofa and wooden pallets in the garden could cause falls. Two missing radiator covers could expose people to hot surfaces.
“There was an old sofa and two wooden pallets left out in the people's garden area.” from the report
End of life wishes incomplete
minorEach person had a booklet for recording their wishes about end of life care, but only one had been completed at the time of inspection.
“However, only one of these had been completed.” from the report
- 01Have the faulty fire doors now been repaired, and how do you check that fire safety actions are completed promptly?
- 02How are medicine storage temperatures checked and recorded now?
- 03What new system is being used to review accidents and incidents, and how is learning shared with staff?
- 04Have the garden obstructions and missing radiator covers been removed or repaired?
- 05Have all people's end of life wishes been discussed and recorded?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions; Safe and Well-led had deteriorated from Good, while the other three ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 December 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, May 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with previous risk-management problems addressed.
The inspection was unannounced and took place over 5 and 6 April 2017. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, managers, support workers and health professionals. They observed care and checked support, decision-making and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Risk plans were up to date, medicines were managed safely, and staff understood people's needs. People were treated with respect and supported to make choices, maintain relationships and take part in activities.
At the October 2015 inspection, the home had breached rules about managing risks. Inspectors found this had been addressed. They also found that the home had acted after a safeguarding case in March 2016 and that the local authority had lifted its alert status.
Up-to-date risk planning
Risk plans gave staff clear instructions and were updated when people's needs or risks changed.
“The plans had been reviewed regularly and updated when people's needs, or the risks they faced, changed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff respected people's choices and privacy, and responded promptly when people needed help or showed distress.
“We observed staff interacting with people in a way that was friendly and respectful.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans reflected people's routines, preferences, health needs and goals for independence. People and their representatives helped develop and review them.
“Each person had a support plan which was personal to them.” from the report
Strong oversight
Managers used audits, feedback and action plans to identify and track improvements.
“The results of these audits were used to develop an action plan for the service.” from the report
Some epilepsy training had expired
needs fixingThe home had problems accessing refresher training for rescue medicine for two people with epilepsy. It arranged cover from trained staff and booked further training.
“The service had experienced problems accessing refresher training for the administration of rescue medicine for two people with epilepsy.” from the report
- 01How do you currently review and update each person's risk assessment when their needs change?
- 02Which staff currently have in-date training to administer rescue medicine for people with epilepsy?
- 03How do you check that medicines, including 'as required' medicines, are given and recorded correctly?
- 04How are people and their families involved in reviewing support plans and changes to care?
- 05What improvements were made after the March 2016 safeguarding case, and how are they checked now?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and included observations, discussions and records for three people; the report says previous ratings from October 2015 were maintained in some areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 May 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 Pennings View
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- December 2019Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about two hours of Wiltshire
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 £1,340 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Linet became her carer and all changed, my daughter started eating, taking her medications and more important her happiness came back.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.