Pendleton Court Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care plans we viewed during the assessment were detailed and explained how people wanted to be supported and how staff should meet their needs. Care documentation included a resident profile, in which was documented what was important to people, the people who were important to them and what promoted people’s wellness. We also noted information about people’s likes and dislikes. All this information, ensure staff could get to know people as individuals and provide care which was specific to them. Observations during the assessment, showed care provided was person centred and in line with people’s choices and preferences. Staff were able to answer questions about people’s support and aspects of their care, which demonstrated their understanding of the people they supported.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Within each person’s care file was a communication assessment and care plan, which assessed people’s ability to communicate and understand others, and provided guidance for staff on how best to communicate with each person. Where people required or used aids, for example hearing aids or glasses, this information was also included. The provider had made some attempts to consider people’s accessible communication needs when creating posters or information for noticeboards, with imagery used to support written information, although further work would be useful to reduce the amount of text used, and also ensure it was in a larger font.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. One person told us, “I don't have any problems, but I feel happy to chat to the manager or staff if I have any concerns.” We saw a number of examples of how people and relatives views and opinions were sought. Regular resident meetings were held, which family members could attend. There was a set agenda at meetings with people and relatives able to contribute to discussion and raise their own areas for discussion. Action points were agreed at each meeting and reviewed at the next, to ensure people and relatives were kept up to date with progress. The provider had a touchscreen device in reception, solely used to capture feedback from people, relatives or anyone else who wanted to do so. There was clear signage on and near the screen, welcoming people to share their views. The provider produced and circulated monthly newsletters which reported on key things from that month, including activities and events which people had undertaken. The provider monitored both complaints and compliments received and shared key information with staff. During 2024, 38 compliments had been received, 7 of these through internal feedback processes and 31 via an online care home review website.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. The provider completed care reviews to ensure people’s care continued to meet their needs. A matrix was used to monitor this process and ensure set timeframes were adhered to. The provider was aware of the importance of ensuring people’s experiences were positive and equal. We noted a good example of how this was achieved for a person who was experiencing both stress and distress for a number of reasons, and therefore wanted to leave. They had difficulties communicating with others, funding to attend a community group had ceased and they found the sound of the nurse call bell distressing. Following a planning meeting, a number of interventions were introduced. These included updating the nurse call system, so that rather than this sounding across the whole home, it only sounded on the unit where the person who had pressed it resided. This reduced the frequency with which it sounded on this person’s unit. Staff, in conjunction with family, produced flash cards to support communication, engaged the person in regular community trips and enrolled them in a local community group, where they could socialise with people from the same culture as them. A relative had told the provider, “I am very happy with everything you are doing and happy that my [relative] is more settled. I am very pleased that my [relative] is joining in all activities. [Relative] now tells me that they love their bedroom and is happy there. The family are now able to relax themselves knowing [relative] is safe”

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. At the time of the assessment, no one was currently in receipt of end of life care. However, we reviewed the process and documentation used by the home at this stage of a person’s life. A separate care plan was produced solely covering end of life care. This was a detailed document which included personalised information about the person and their history and details of who was legally allowed to make decisions about the person’s care when they no longer were able to. The care plan also covered what the person understood about their illness and what was happening to them, what was important to them, their wishes around family involvement and how they specifically wanted to be cared for at this time in their life. This included management of their symptoms and pain, personal care, continence care, skin care, nutrition and hydration. The plan also contained a section for staff to document every intervention or care task provided, to ensure the person’s wishes had been followed.