CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Pennington Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, effective and responsive care, but concerns about dignity and management oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 December 2019. The inspector spoke with people and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine systems, detailed risk assessments, personalised care plans, suitable activities and good support with food, health care and independence.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Caring and Well-led. Some staff did not always protect people's dignity, and confidential information was not always kept securely. Management checks had not identified some problems with staff performance and record keeping.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection, published in June 2017, to Requires Improvement.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and observed staff responding quickly. Medicines were stored, checked and audited safely.
“Medicines, and records of medicines, were audited frequently so the management team had a good oversight of how medicines were managed at the home.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, histories, preferences and hopes. Support focused on choice, independence and developing new skills.
“Care records were highly personalised, containing detailed information about people's care needs, personal histories and aspirations.” from the report
Choice and involvement
People were involved in decisions about their care, food and daily activities. Staff supported people to have control and make progress towards greater independence.
“People were supported to make decisions about their care and treatment, and were viewed as genuine partners in devising their care packages.” from the report
Good health and activity support
The home worked with health professionals and supported people to take part in activities and maintain relationships.
“People were supported to take part in social activities and keep in touch with family and friends.” from the report
Management checks missed problems
needs fixingQuality monitoring did not identify some shortfalls in staff performance and record keeping. This meant there was a risk that poor practice was not recognised quickly.
“However, the quality monitoring systems had failed to identify some shortfalls in delivery, such as record keeping and staff performance.” from the report
Confidential information was not always secure
needs fixingAn office containing confidential information was often left unattended and unlocked during the inspection.
“An office containing confidential information was often unattended and unlocked during the inspection.” from the report
Maintenance evidence was incomplete
needs fixingThe provider could not show that required maintenance had been completed after the most recent electrical installation condition report.
“The provider could not provide assurance that the required maintenance had been carried out following the most recent electrical installation condition report” from the report
- 01What specific action has been taken to make sure all staff consistently protect people's dignity?
- 02How do managers now check staff interactions and respond when poor practice is found?
- 03How are confidential care records kept secure when the office is not occupied?
- 04Has all maintenance identified after the electrical installation condition report now been completed?
- 05How are end of life preferences recorded for every person who wants to discuss them?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the home's premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 February 2020 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, June 2017
Pennington Court was rated Good in every area; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 17 May 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, managers and support staff. They observed care, looked around the home and checked care records, medicines, staff files and quality checks.
Seven people were living at the home, which can support up to eight younger people with a learning disability. People indicated that they felt safe and were happy. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine arrangements, suitable training and support, and good access to health services.
Staff supported people to make choices about their care, meals, activities and daily routines. Inspectors saw respectful and caring relationships, and found that support plans explained people's needs, preferences and communication. Complaints were taken seriously and relatives raised no concerns.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. It was also rated Good overall at the May 2015 inspection, although one area then needed improvement.
People felt safe
People indicated that they felt safe and were happy living at the home. Staff understood safeguarding and knew how to respond to possible abuse.
“Some people we spoke with had limited verbal communication. However, they very clearly indicated they felt safe and were happy living in the home” from the report
Respectful support
Staff treated people with warmth, patience, privacy and dignity. Inspectors saw people relaxed and comfortable with staff.
“We found that staff spoke to people with understanding, warmth and respect, and took into account people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Choice and independence
People chose their meals, activities, routines and how they used their own living space. Staff supported people to make decisions and promoted independence.
“People were given choice about where and how they spent their time.” from the report
Good understanding of individual needs
Staff knew people well, including how they communicated feelings, pain or distress. Support plans gave clear guidance about people's needs and risks.
“Each person had a profile detailing how they communicated when they were happy and content and how they expressed, pain, anger or distress.” from the report
Strong management checks
The manager and provider used regular audits and followed up actions. Staff said they were supported and could raise concerns.
“There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you make sure each person's preferred way of communicating is understood by every member of staff?
- 02How are medicines, including medicines given only when needed, reviewed and checked?
- 03How do you support people to make their own choices while keeping community and other risks under review?
- 04How are people's views and any complaints used to change the service?
- 05What actions from your regular audits are currently being followed up?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five areas; the previous inspection in May 2015 had rated the home Good overall, with one area requiring improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 June 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 Pennington Court
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2020Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 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
97 live-in carers within about an hour of Rotherham
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. 80 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
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.