CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Penrose Farm
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, robust recruitment checks, safe medicines systems and suitable fire safety arrangements. One risk assessment did not explain what staff should do if a person became unwell while unsupported, and the manager said a new protocol would be added.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had a good understanding of people's needs and received induction, training, supervision and appraisals. Some required training was out of date, although this had been identified and scheduled.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with patience, care and respect. Staff understood different communication styles, supported independence and used personalised picture-led information.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed, current and available in accessible formats. People were supported with activities, family involvement and regular feedback, although relatives reported some confusion about appointments.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management oversight had not been strong enough during a period of limited support. Cleaning and maintenance issues were found on the first day, although they were addressed within 72 hours.
What inspectors found, October 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, but the home's leadership and oversight need improvement.
Inspectors visited on 19 and 22 September 2017. The inspection was comprehensive and unannounced on the first day. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and other professionals, observed care, looked around the home and checked care, staff and management records.
The home supported five people with complex needs. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices, communicate and take part in activities. Medicines were managed safely, staff understood people's needs and care plans were detailed and personalised.
The overall rating remained Good, as it was at the previous inspection in August 2015. Safe, effective, caring and responsive care were rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because maintenance, cleaning and management checks had not been dealt with promptly.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive relationships between people and staff. People were given time, treated with dignity and supported at their own pace.
“People were treated with patience and care and their dignity was respected.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's needs, preferences and communication styles well. Support plans were written around each person and helped people make choices.
“Staff demonstrated they had an excellent knowledge of the people they supported and were able to appropriately support people without limiting their independence.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
There were enough staff on duty, recruitment checks were completed and medicines records and stock checks were accurate.
“People's medicines were stored securely in a locked cupboard in a spare room which was also kept locked.” from the report
Activities and independence
People took part in activities such as shopping, meals out, swimming, holidays and paid work. Staff also supported people to develop everyday skills.
“During the inspection we saw people were supported to engage in a range of activities from shopping trips, going out for lunch and one person spent part of their day in paid employment.” from the report
Management oversight
needs fixingThe home had gone through several months with limited management support. Maintenance and background cleaning were not monitored closely enough and some issues had not been dealt with promptly.
“This had led to a drop in monitoring of aspects of the running of the service.” from the report
Cleaning and maintenance
needs fixingInspectors found a faulty tap, low water pressure, a bathroom hot water problem, a missing window restrictor and areas needing a deep clean. These issues were addressed by the second inspection day.
“Internally the main house required a deep clean.” from the report
Appointment communication
needs fixingTwo relatives described confusion about appointments, including missed or re-booked appointments. The manager accepted that there had been confusion about activities and booked appointments.
“There have been instances when [Person's name] has not made it to medical appointments because there has been a mix up about times.” from the report
Training updates
minorSome required staff training was not up to date. The home had identified the gaps and scheduled the training.
“Training records showed there were some gaps in required staff training.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that cleaning and maintenance tasks are completed promptly?
- 02What management support and quality checks are in place since the period of limited management support?
- 03How are medical appointments recorded, checked and communicated to families and staff?
- 04Has all outstanding staff training been completed, and how do you monitor refresher training?
- 05How is the risk assessment updated for times when a person is unsupported and becomes unwell?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with visits on 19 and 22 September 2017 and the first day unannounced. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 October 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 Penrose Farm
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2017Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 October 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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.