We carried out a review of the data available to us about Ponderosa 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 Ponderosa, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The provider had systems in place to ensure staff knew how to keep people and themselves safe and reduce any risk of COVID-19. The provider had continually reviewed their infection prevention and control (IPC) policies. Staff were regularly updated with changes to government guidance and procedures to follow to keep people, staff and visitors safe.
Staff completed IPC training and were observed to be wearing the correct personal protective equipment (PPE) and following best practice. There was guidance for staff displayed around the home to remind them of best practice, which was also discussed during daily handovers.
There were robust visiting protocols in place to ensure the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections. Visitors needed to take a lateral flow device COVID-19 test and were provided with the necessary PPE upon entry to the home. This assured us the provider was facilitating visits for people living in the home in accordance with the current guidance.
Staff were involved in regular COVID-19 testing and the provider made sure they were
following the recent legal requirement for all staff and relevant visitors, such as health and social care professionals, to have had the COVID-19 vaccine.
The home was clean and hygienic throughout.
Ponderosa is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or
personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the
premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service can accommodate five people in one house.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
At the last comprehensive inspection in April 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.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link
for 'Ponderosa' on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.'
Ponderosa is in a rural area near Doncaster. There are local facilities and shops at the village of Askern, which is approximately three miles away. The service has its own transport to enable people to go out into the community. The home offers accommodation for up to five people aged 16 and over who have complex or challenging needs, such as autism. It specialises in supporting people who are deaf or have a profound hearing impairment. Accommodation consists of a self-contained flat and three bedrooms with en-suite facilities. There are extensive gardens that house stables, a sensory garden and a chicken run.
The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager
is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service.
There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about safeguarding vulnerable people and could explain the procedures they would follow should an allegation of abuse be made.
People received personalised care which was based on their individual needs. People were involved in activities of their choice and had the freedom to lead a life without restrictions.
The registered provider had a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to make a complaint. People who used the service and their relatives were aware of this procedure and on a whole felt able to discuss any concerns, however we received mixed feedback from one relative, who felt complaints could be handled better.
We saw staff enabled people who used the service to follow their preferred interests and be as independent as possible.
There were enough skilled and experienced staff available to meet people's needs and enable them to follow their hobbies and interests.
The company's recruitment system helped the employer make safe recruitment decisions when employing staff.
People received their medications in a safe and timely way, from staff that had been trained to carry out this role.
We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The staff we spoke with had a good understanding and knowledge of this and people who used the service had been assessed to determine if a DoLS application was required.
People were fully involved in choosing what they wanted to eat and drink. People were also involved in preparing and cooking their own meals.
Staff were trained to carry out their role and felt they had the necessary skills to do their job. Through our observations we saw staff knew people well and understood their needs.
Healthcare professionals were accessed as required.
Care records reflected people's needs and preferences, as well as any risks associated with their care. These provided staff with detailed guidance about how to support people and keep them as safe as possible. Support plans and risk assessments had been reviewed and updated regularly to ensure they were meeting each person's needs.
People had consented to their support and took part in various activities. Peoples choices were respected and they were involved in regular meetings about their home.
Staff had confidence in the management team. There were systems and processed in place to monitor, review and improve the service.
Ponderosa is a care home located in a rural area near Doncaster. There are local facilities and shops at the village of Askern, which is approximately three miles away. The service has its own transport to enable people to go out into the community. The home offers accommodation for up to four people aged 16 and over who have complex or challenging needs, such as autism. It specialises in supporting people who are deaf or have a profound hearing impairment. Accommodation consists of a self-contained flat and three bedrooms with en-suite facilities. There are extensive gardens that house stables, a chicken run and a vegetable garden.
The service did not have a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection, but an acting manager had recently been appointed. They told us they were in the process of submitting their application to be the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons.’ Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People told us they felt the home was a safe place to live and work. Systems were in place to keep people safe and staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding vulnerable people.
Throughout our inspection we saw staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible while taking into consideration their wishes and any risks associated with their care. People’s comments, and our observations, indicated people using the service received appropriate support from staff who knew them well.
There were enough skilled and experienced staff on duty to meet people’s needs and enable them to follow their hobbies and interests.
The company’s recruitment system helped the employer make safe recruitment decisions when employing staff. We found new staff had received an induction and essential training at the beginning of their employment. This had been followed by refresher and specialist training to update and develop their knowledge and skills. However, training information provided indicated that some staffs’ training had not taken place to the timescales set out by the company.
People received their medications in a safe and timely way from staff who had been trained to carry out this role.
We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The staff we spoke with had a satisfactory understanding and knowledge of this, and people who used the service had been assessed to determine if a DoLS application was required.
People received a balance diet that met their needs and preferences, and were fully involved in choosing what they wanted to eat and drink. We found people planned their own meals, went food shopping and helped to prepare meals.
People participated in a varied programme of activities that was tailored around their individual interests and preferences. We saw they were fully involved in deciding what they wanted to do.
The provider had a complaints policy to guide people on how to raise concerns. There was a structured system in place for recording the detail and outcome of any concerns raised.
In the main, care files reflected people’s needs and preferences, as well as any risks associated with their care. These provided staff with guidance about how to support people and keep them as safe as possible. However, support plans had not always been updated in a timely manner to reflect recent changes.
People had shared their opinions at care review meetings and informally on a one to one basis. However, group meetings had not taken place since the summer of 2015 and there had been no formal consultation with relatives or outside agencies to assess how the home was operating.
A system was in place to check if the company’s policies had been followed and the premises were safe and well maintained. We found there were some areas that needed improvement and in most cases there were actions plans were in place to address identified shortfalls, but timescales had not always been set for completion. The shortfalls we found with regards to care plan documentation had not been identified by the providers audit system.