CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Penniston Barn
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Penniston Barn: targeted COVID-19 inspection found good infection-control arrangements, but the service was not rated.
Inspectors visited the home on 19 March 2021. This was an announced, targeted inspection focused on infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
They found good practice. Visitors had their temperatures checked and wore PPE. There was enough PPE, staff had been trained to use it, and people and staff were regularly tested.
The home was clean and free from clutter. Cleaning of frequently touched surfaces had increased. People could keep in touch with family and friends through visits, video calls and telephone calls.
The overall service and the Safe question were marked "Inspected but not rated". This means the visit checked infection-control arrangements but did not give a standard quality rating.
PPE and visitor safety
Visitors had their temperatures checked and wore PPE. The home had enough PPE, and staff had been trained to use it safely.
“Visitors to the service had their temperature taken and wore personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Testing
Regular COVID-19 testing was carried out for people living in the home and for staff.
“Regular COVID-19 testing for all people and staff living and working in the service was regularly carried out.” from the report
Contact with families
People were supported to stay in contact with family and friends through planned visits, video calls and telephone calls. A sensory room had been set up for visits.
“People were supported to have contact with their families and friends either through planned visits or through video and telephone calls.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the building clean and free from clutter. Cleaning of frequently touched surfaces had increased.
“The building was clean and free from clutter.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection-control arrangements are in place now for visitors, including temperature checks and PPE?
- 02How often are people using the home and staff tested, and what happens if a test is positive?
- 03How can residents currently keep in contact with family and friends, and is the sensory room still available?
- 04How often are frequently touched surfaces cleaned?
- 05When was the home's most recent full inspection covering areas other than infection prevention and control?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it did not assess the other four questions or give an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 April 2021 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 2020
Rated Good, with Outstanding effectiveness; inspectors found kind, personalised care and clear improvement since the last inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 and 19 March 2020. One inspector observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. It was rated Good for Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led, and Outstanding for Effective. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness, supported to make choices and helped to live more independently.
Inspectors saw particularly strong results from personalised support. People were helped to communicate, access the community, eat more healthily, manage anxiety and reduce distressed behaviours and the use of some medicines.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in March 2019. The home had been in breach of Regulation 12 at that time, but inspectors found enough improvement and said it was no longer in breach.
Strong personal outcomes
Inspectors found that support had led to major improvements in people's quality of life, independence, communication and access to the community.
“People received exceptionally effective care which ensured that they achieved fantastic outcomes and were supported to improve their quality of life.” from the report
Healthy lifestyles
People were supported to choose and prepare healthier food, exercise and develop daily living skills. Inspectors saw positive effects on people's health and wellbeing.
“The support which people received to maintain a balanced and healthy diet was exemplary.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people as individuals and supported them calmly and patiently. People were involved in decisions and encouraged to be independent.
“People were supported by a kind and compassionate staff team who had got to know them as individuals.” from the report
Good communication support
Staff used pictures, signs, writing and other agreed methods so people could understand information and express their choices.
“The manager and staff team ensured that people's communication needs were met.” from the report
Improved safety and cleanliness
The home had improved cleaning, infection control and the condition of areas identified as unsuitable at the previous inspection.
“Enough improvements had been made at this inspection and the provider was no longer in breach of Regulation 12.” from the report
Rural location
minorThe home was far from local amenities and public transport was limited. Inspectors said this had not negatively affected people because they had vehicles, but families should consider access for their relative and visitors.
“The service was in a rural location far away from local amenities with limited access to public transport.” from the report
Manager registration
needs fixingThe home had been without a registered manager for nine months. The report says the manager had rectified this and was in the process of registering with CQC.
“The service had been without a registered manager for nine months.” from the report
End-of-life planning
minorPeople had not yet been supported to make end-of-life plans. The manager had prepared a policy and care plan and intended to discuss these with people and relatives.
“People living at the service were young and had not been supported to put plans in place for the end of their life.” from the report
- 01What is the current position on the manager's CQC registration?
- 02How will you help my relative make and review an end-of-life plan?
- 03How will my relative travel to local amenities and activities, and how can family members visit?
- 04What communication methods, such as pictures, signs or writing, would you use to support my relative?
- 05What changes have been made since the previous inspection, and how do you check that they remain effective?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with observations, conversations and checks of care, medicines, staffing and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 May 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.
Every inspection of Penniston Barn
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvement
- July 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 August 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Central Bedfordshire
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. 83 can care for a couple. 12 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 handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
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.