We carried out a review of the data available to us about Penrose Farm on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Penrose Farm, you can give feedback on this service.
Penrose Farm provides accommodation for up to five people with complex needs. There were five people living at the service at the time of our inspection. Not everyone who lived at the service was able to verbally communicate due to their healthcare needs.
At the time of this inspection the service was undergoing a change in the way it was managed. The registered manager explained that the service had gone through a period of several months over the summer with limited management support. This had led to a drop in monitoring of aspects of the running of the service. For example, outstanding maintenance issues and background cleaning of the fabric of the service had been overlooked. The registered manager had recognised that the level of scrutiny required, in order to manage the size and complexity of the service required additional resource. We have made a recommendation in the well led section of this report about this.
We walked around the main house and noted areas of maintenance, such as a faulty tap that needed to be fixed. We also noted that communal areas such as the utility room had not been well maintained and were not clean. This was pointed out to the registered manager at the time. By the second day of inspection all outstanding maintenance issues had been rectified and the service had been fully deep cleaned to a high standard.
People had regular routine access to visiting health and social care professionals where necessary. People attended an annual health check with a GP and had access to specialist medical services to ensure their health needs were met. Two relatives of people living at Penrose Farm told us there was not always appropriate communication about appointments that people needed to attend outside of the service. Comments included, "Communication could be better. There have been instances when [Person’s name] has not made it to medical appointments because there has been a mix up about times. It has been frustrating at times” and “There was some confusion over a booked appointment and the appointment had to be re-booked. I think the communication between management/staff and other professionals could be better at times”. The registered manager acknowledged there had been confusion regarding two people’s activities and booked appointments which had led to a situation where appointments needed to be re-booked.
People were relaxed, engaged in their own choice of activities and appeared to be happy and well supported by the service. One person told us they were happy and felt safe living at Penrose Farm. Relatives of people who lived at the service were generally positive about the care and support provided to people. Comments included, “I am generally pleased with the care [Person’s name] receives. It’s clear [they] are happy there and I would say my impression is staff genuinely like [Person’s name].”
Penrose Farm is made up of four separate accommodation areas with a main house accommodating two people, an annex accommodating one person and two independent living spaces on the grounds of the service, each accommodating one person.
The service was comfortable and personalised to reflect people's individual tastes. People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Staff demonstrated they had an excellent knowledge of the people they supported and were able to appropriately support people without limiting their independence. Staff consistently spent time speaking with the people they were supporting. We saw many positive interactions and people enjoyed talking to and engaging with staff. One staff member said, "I get a lot of pleasure from my job. One of the best parts of my job is making sure every customer’s life is as enjoyable and safe as possible. Our role is to ensure people live happy and fulfilled lives.”
Staff had completed training in how to recognise the signs of abuse. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.
Staff were well supported by a system of induction, training and supervision. We found there were areas of training that required updating and saw this had been identified and scheduled. Staff meetings were an opportunity to contribute to the running of the service. Staff told us they were well supported by the management team and each other.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People’s communication styles were understood and staff were patient and respectful in encouraging people to communicate in the way that was most appropriate for them. Information was produced using easy read techniques, e.g. limited text and photographs and pictures. Support plans were available in an accessible format.
Penrose Farm provides accommodation for up to five people with complex needs. The service uses a large detached house divided into separate living spaces and a detached barn conversion. There was also a large garden for people’s use. There were three people living at the service at the time of our inspection.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.
This was an unannounced inspection, carried out on 26 September 2015.
Due to people’s communication needs we were unable to gain some people’s verbal views on the service. We therefore observed staff interactions and spoke with one person who lived there. We observed that people were relaxed, engaged in their own choice of activities and appeared to be happy and were well supported by the service. One person told us they were happy and felt safe living at Penrose Farm. Comments included; “It’s good here. I’ve lived here a long time and I like it”. We walked around the service and saw it was comfortable and personalised to reflect people’s individual tastes. People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Staff demonstrated they had an excellent knowledge of the people they supported and were able to appropriately support people without limiting their independence. Staff consistently spent time speaking with the people they were supporting. We saw many positive interactions and people enjoyed talking to and interacting with staff. One staff member said, “I enjoy working here. It’s a good staff team and the people who live here are great”.
Staff were trained and competent to provide the support individuals required. Staff were well supported through a system of induction and training. Staff told us the training was thorough and gave them confidence to carry out their role effectively. The staff team were supportive of each other and worked together to support people. Staffing levels met the present care needs of the people that lived at the service.
Where people did not have the capacity to make certain decisions, the service acted in accordance with legal requirements under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People had a choice of meals, snacks and drinks chosen by themselves, which we saw they enjoyed. People had been included in planning their own menus and their feedback about the meals in the service had been listened to and acted on. Some people were actively involved in meal preparation.
Visitors told us they were always made welcome and were able to visit at any time. People were able to see their visitors privately if they wanted to. Relatives of people who used the service commented, “It’s an absolutely brilliant service. We can always ring and there is lots of email contact. We are always welcomed at Penrose”.
People knew how to complain and we saw people had regular feedback opportunities to discuss how they felt about the service. Each person had a key-worker who checked regularly if people were happy or wanted to raise any concerns. One relative told us, “We have no concerns. Penrose Farm meets (person’s) needs very well”.
From discussions with relatives and documents we looked at we saw that families were included in planning and agreeing to the care provided at the service. People had individual support plans, detailing the support they needed and how they wanted this to be provided. Senior staff reviewed plans at least monthly with input from the person who was supported.
Staff demonstrated they knew the people they were supporting and the choices they had made about their support and how they wished to live their lives. For example, staff told us about one person they supported who wanted to grow vegetables and the service had made arrangements to build a poly-tunnel to allow the person to do this.
We saw evidence that comprehensive quality assurance processes were regularly undertaken to ensure the service was aware of people’s views of the service and could monitor auditing processes at the service. This ensured there was an open service culture that was open to challenge and learning from issues affecting the quality of the service as they arose.