Peppercorn House

Updated 22 February 2022

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at how services manage infection control and visiting arrangements. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection prevention and control measures the provider had in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 7 February 2022 and was announced. We gave the service three days’ notice of the inspection

Updated 22 February 2022

Peppercorn House is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own flats in a sheltered housing complex. It provides a service to adults. At the time of this announced inspection of 17 May 2018 there were 22 people who used the service. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of our inspection to make sure that someone was available.

At our last inspection of 3 February 2016 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The service continued to be safe. This included systems designed to minimise the risks to people, including from abuse and in their daily lives. There were systems in place for the service to learn from incidents to improve the service. There were care workers to cover people’s planned care visits. Recruitment of care workers was done safely. Where people required support with their medicines, these were administered safely. There were infection control procedures in place to guide care workers in how to minimise the risks of cross infection.

The service continued to be effective. People were supported by care workers who were trained and supported to meet their needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and care workers cared for them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Where people required support with their dietary needs, systems were in place to deliver this. People were supported to have access to health professionals where needed. The service worked with other organisations involved in people’s care to provide consistent care.

The service continued to be caring. People had positive relationships with the care workers. People’s dignity, privacy and independence were respected and promoted. Their views were listened to and valued.

The service continued to be responsive. People received care which was assessed, planned and delivered to meet their individual needs. There were systems in place to support and care for people at the end of their lives, where required. A complaints procedure was in place and concerns were acted upon and used to improve the service.

The service continued to be well-led. The service used comments from people and incidents to learn from and to drive improvement. The service had a quality assurance system and shortfalls were identified and addressed. As a result the quality of the service continued to improve.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.