CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Pentlands Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- The home had enough staff, safe medicines systems, safeguarding training and clean premises. However, building work created a risk because tools and dust sheets were accessible, and one repositioning record did not match the care plan.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health, nutrition and consent needs were assessed and followed up. Staff had training, supervision and access to specialist support, and earlier concerns about consent and weight-loss records had been addressed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed kindness, warmth, respect and calm support. People had choices about meals, daily activities and bedtime, although care plans did not always clearly show that people had been fully consulted and had agreed to their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were individualised and updated as people's needs changed. Activities reflected people's requests, and people and relatives said they knew how to complain and that issues were dealt with.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was described as open and available, and staff felt able to raise concerns. Audits, meetings and links with health services were used to review care and make improvements.
What inspectors found, April 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, effective and responsive care, but safety checks during building work needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 and 13 February 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff, managers and a visiting GP. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staffing, training, complaints and safety records.
Overall, the home was rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, clean premises, suitable training and good support for people's health, nutrition and personal choices. People were treated kindly and the home responded to changing needs and complaints.
The Safe rating was Requires Improvement. During redecoration, tools and dust sheets were left where people could reach them, and the risk assessment did not give enough detail about how the area would be monitored. Inspectors made a recommendation, but the report does not say that any regulation was breached.
The other four areas were rated Good. Effective care had improved since the previous inspection, while Caring, Responsive and Well-led remained Good.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff speaking warmly to people, explaining care and supporting meals calmly. People's privacy, dignity and individual preferences were promoted.
“We observed staff treated people with kindness and warmth.” from the report
Good health support
The home worked closely with the local GP practice and other health professionals. People's medical, nutritional and swallowing needs were assessed and followed up.
“The staff worked well with other health care services and a nurse practitioner from the local GP practice visited the service each week” from the report
Trained staff and suitable staffing levels
Inspectors found sufficient staff to meet people's needs. Staff received induction, training, supervision and opportunities to develop specialist skills.
“Sufficient numbers of staff were provided to meet people's needs.” from the report
Individual activities and care
Care plans reflected people's backgrounds, interests and preferences. The home offered activities and acted on requests made through residents' meetings.
“A range of activities were provided for people and the service responded to people's requests for specific activities via the residents' meeting” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff spoke favourably about the manager's availability. Surveys and meetings gave people and relatives ways to influence the service.
“Mechanisms were in place to consult and involve people and their relatives in decision making at the service.” from the report
Safety during building work
needs fixingDuring redecoration, one corridor had tools balanced on handrails and dust sheets on the floor. People could reach the area, and the risk assessment did not explain enough about monitoring and controls.
“We observed people had access to this area which meant there was a risk to them.” from the report
Repositioning records
needs fixingOne care plan required repositioning every two hours, but records showed longer gaps, sometimes over four hours. The manager agreed to check this and remind staff to record repositioning consistently.
“The registered manager agreed she would check this to ensure the person was appropriately supported and reminded staff to always complete a record to show people were repositioned.” from the report
Care plan agreement was not always clear
minorCare plans described people's choices well, but did not always clearly show that people had been consulted and had agreed to their care.
“Whilst care plans reflected people's individuality and choice of lifestyle they did not clearly show people were fully consulted and had agreed to their care.” from the report
Accessible information procedures
minorThe manager said information could be provided in accessible formats, but was not fully aware of the Accessible Information Standard and the provider had no related policies or procedures.
“The registered manager, however, was not fully aware of the AIS and the provider did not have any policies or procedures regarding this.” from the report
- 01What checks are now made to keep residents safe when maintenance or building work is taking place?
- 02How do you make sure repositioning is carried out at the planned times and recorded every time?
- 03How do care plans show that residents and families have been consulted and have agreed to the care?
- 04What policies and procedures are now in place for providing information in accessible formats?
- 05What improvements have been made since the Safe rating fell to Requires Improvement?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating; the report used a shorter format because the overall rating stayed Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 April 2018 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 Pentlands Nursing Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 January 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.