Pennine Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Our rating for this key question has changed to requires improvement. We found 1 breach of the legal requirements. During our assessment a serious incident occurred that involved a significant breach of a person’s privacy and dignity. Partners and staff had mixed views as to whether the people were always supported with respect. However, people told us they liked the staff that worked at the service, their independence was supported, and their needs met.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us they liked the staff that cared for them. One person told us, “The staff are lovely, and kind and they care.” Another person said, “The staff make the time to speak to me.” People felt their privacy was respected. For example, one person told us, “I keep my door closed and the staff always knock on the door before they come in.”

Staff had mixed views on whether all the staff working at Pennine Care Centre were kind to people. Some staff told us they were concerned that people had been mocked by some staff and we reviewed footage of a similar incident.

Partners had mixed views on whether staff provided effective emotional reassurance to people. One partner told us, “The new staff are all very caring and compassionate.” Whilst all partners told us they had observed care staff talking to people with kindness, some told us they had previously observed staff to not always be mindful of people’s dignity, privacy and emotional needs. Some partners told us they had observed people in distress when staff had either been busy with other people or staff had not used effective strategies to reassure people.

On the days of our inspection, we observed staff supported people with kindness. However, during our assessment a serious incident occurred that involved a significant breach of a person’s privacy and dignity. It was referred for investigation to the local authority safeguarding team and the police. The provider was in the process of completing their own investigation into this incident.

People told us their choices were respected. For example, people told us staff helped them with any personal care needs, such as showering. One person said, “I can choose if I want a shower or not and how often.” Another person told us staff understood them well. They said, “The staff know me well and they can understand me and know what I like.” A relative told us their loved one’s faith needs were known and respected. They said, “My loved one is religious, and their faith is important to them. The home welcomes visitors from the church.”

Leaders told us they used assessment processes to identify and meet people’s individual needs. However, we found evidence that people were offered food that was not in line with their choices. For example, a vegetarian being offered meat.

Whilst records showed people had not always been offered choices in line with their preferences, during the onsite inspection we saw that people were offered choices and their choices had been respected. Leaders advocated for people to help them make progress towards their aims and goals.

Processes used to record specific aspects of people’s personal care were not always used effectively. Therefore, processes to show people received personal care in line with their preferences were not always effective. Processes to record people’s food intake were not always used effectively. Staff had recorded a person who was vegetarian had been offered a meat meal. Whilst leaders told us they were certain staff would not have given a meat meal to a vegetarian, the provider’s records did not provide assurances that people’s individual needs were consistently met and respected. The registered manager had taken action to try and improve people’s food choices when they had been made aware of previous concerns.

People told us they felt staff promoted their independence. One person told us, “I feel the staff allow me to be as independent as I can, they allow me to make decisions and they do not tell me what to do.” Another person explained, “The staff have helped me become more independent. They do not fuss over me which I prefer but they will assist me if I require it. They have helped me to become more independent in mobilising around the home and they have allowed me to have freedom and I don’t feel restricted.” Another person told us, “I enjoy the day most when I go out to the shops. I can buy things and equipment that allow me to follow my hobby.” People’s independence was promoted and they experienced choice and control in their lives.

Whilst leaders told us people's independence, choices and control was supported though people's care plan and risk assessments we were not assured this was the case due to the lack of detail, consistency and accuracy within some of them.

During the onsite inspection people’s individual choices were respected. For example, people were offered choices regarding their meals and what activities they wanted to engage with. People were supported to work towards achieving their own personal goals and aims. . However, issues with food choices had not been fully resolved and we could not be assured that similar incidents would not occur.

Whilst people's views informed their care plans, these had not always been followed by staff. Therefore, leaders could not be assured that staff followed processes to ensure people's choices were respected.

People felt staff responded to meeting their needs well. One person told us, “The staff all know me well and they can even anticipate what I need when I use the call bell.” Another person said, “The staff generally attend quickly.” A relative told us, “My loved one has a sensor mat in place and the staff attend fairly promptly if it is triggered.” People felt staff attended to their immediate needs when required.

Leaders and staff felt they were able to meet any immediate needs people may have. Staff told us they would make sure people had any toiletries they needed and would attend to any personal care needs.

Calls bells were answered within a reasonable time and staff understood people’s individual care needs. People’s care needs were met in a timely manner.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.