CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Penrith Drive
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Penrith Drive was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care but unsafe medicines, environmental risks and weak oversight.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 27 and 28 June 2023. One inspector met all five people living there, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, checked the environment and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive care. People were supported by staff who knew them well, respected their choices and communication needs, helped them stay healthy and supported activities, relationships and community visits.
Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found medicines were not always stored, administered or recorded safely. They also found risks involving mobility, unsecured furniture, damaged equipment, infection control and poor monitoring had not been identified or managed properly. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection in 2017.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with care and kindness. Staff understood people's emotions, communication styles and personal preferences.
“We saw staff treated people with care and kindness.” from the report
Personalised communication
Staff used gestures, facial expressions, pictures and Makaton to help people communicate and make decisions.
“Staff used picture cards and described the gestures or body language used to communicate with people and what they meant.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to pursue interests, attend day centres, use local facilities, go for walks and maintain relationships.
“People were supported by staff to take part in activities and pursue their interests in their local area.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels and the staff skill mix were sufficient on the inspection days. Recruitment checks were also completed.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Medicines safety
seriousSome medicines were stored unsafely, opening dates were missing and medicine records had gaps. The home could not always prove that medicines were given at the right time or stored at a safe temperature.
“People's medicines were not always stored, managed and administered safely.” from the report
Physical and environmental risks
seriousRisks linked to changing mobility were not fully assessed. Unsecured wardrobes, difficult steps and damaged bedroom equipment could have caused injury.
“The provider had not ensured risks to people in relation to the environment and infectious diseases were managed effectively.” from the report
Infection prevention
seriousA threadbare mattress protector and damaged bed rail covers were found. Some surfaces and fittings were damaged or difficult to clean, increasing the risk of infection spreading.
“People were not protected from the risk of spreading infectious diseases.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousInternal audits and monitoring had not identified the safety problems. This meant the provider's oversight did not reliably protect people from unsafe care.
“The provider's governance and oversight systems and processes were not wholly effective.” from the report
- 01What has been done to ensure all medicines are stored safely, dated when opened and recorded correctly?
- 02How are covert medicines now assessed and checked with the supplying pharmacist?
- 03Have the unsecured wardrobes, difficult summer house steps, damaged bed rail covers and poor surfaces all been repaired or replaced?
- 04How will regular audits identify medicines, mobility, environmental and infection risks before they affect people?
- 05What evidence can you show that the action plan requested by CQC has been completed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control, with the previous Good ratings reassessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 August 2023 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, March 2022
Penrith Drive was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection controls but some areas and cleaning equipment needed improvement.
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inspectors also asked about staffing pressures and whether these affected people. The visit took place on 17 February 2022.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using personal protective equipment safely, arranging testing, managing visits and admissions, and following shielding and social distancing guidance. Staff had infection control training, and cleaning records showed regular cleaning of frequently touched areas.
Inspectors identified some areas that needed decorating and updating so they could be properly disinfected. Some cleaning products and equipment also needed improvement. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
PPE and infection controls
The home had supplies of protective equipment in several locations, including near bedrooms where people might need to isolate.
“There were plentiful supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) throughout the home which included gloves, masks and aprons.” from the report
Testing and staff training
Staff took part in regular testing and had training on infection control and using PPE correctly.
“Staff participated in a daily and weekly testing regime prior to commencing work.” from the report
Cleaning checks
The home kept records of cleaning, including cleaning of frequently touched areas, to reduce the risk of infection spreading.
“We saw various cleaning records which included regular high touch point cleaning to ensure the potential for cross infection had been reduced.” from the report
Safe visiting arrangements
Inspectors were assured that visits followed the government guidance in place at the time. During the outbreak, people could keep in touch with relatives by video and phone calls.
“The provider followed the current government's guidance to facilitate visits safely.” from the report
Areas needing improvement
needs fixingSome parts of the home needed decorating and updating so they could be properly disinfected.
“There were areas of the environment which required to be decorated and updated to ensure they were disinfectable.” from the report
Cleaning equipment
needs fixingSome cleaning products and equipment needed improvement to help prevent cross-contamination.
“Some cleaning products and equipment also required to be improved to ensure people were protected from cross contamination.” from the report
- 01What decorating and updating has been completed since the inspection to make the affected areas disinfectable?
- 02Which cleaning products and equipment were identified as needing improvement, and have they now been replaced or upgraded?
- 03How are PPE supplies, staff testing and infection control training kept up to date now?
- 04How would visits be managed if there were another COVID-19 outbreak?
- 05What recent inspection or assessment covers caring, responsiveness, effectiveness and leadership, as those areas were not assessed in this report?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other key questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 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.
Every inspection of Penrith Drive
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- August 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 March 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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of North Northamptonshire
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. 76 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
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.