Pennine Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Our rating for this key question has remained good. People were involved in their care planning and supported towards their goals and aims. People had not always been given meals in line with the provider’s own expectations of quality. Risk assessments did not always reflect risks to people and how to reduce those.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were involved in their care planning. A relative told us, “Myself and my sibling have a Power of Attorney and we are included in aspects of my loved one’s care.” People told us they had access to a GP when needed. One person told us, “If I felt unwell, I would tell the staff who would contact the GP.” A relative told us, “I have regular calls with the GP who gives me an update on any health needs.”

An electronic care planning system was used that contained different assessments for people’s different needs. These then informed people’s care plans. However, as staff had not always fully completed people's assessments we could not be assured that care plans covered each individuals specific needs. People had access to a visiting GP and care plans and assessments were updated as and when needed. Leaders told us they assessed people’s needs if they had been in hospital. This helped staff to understand any changes in people’s needs when they were discharged back to the home.

Whilst staff had access to a range of evidence-based tools to assess people’s needs these were not always used effectively or safely to reduce risks. Staff had not fully completed people's assessments and therefore we were not assured that plans had been put in place to reduce individual people's risk. For example, one person’s records showed they had over time received multiple bruises and some skin tears. Their risk assessment contained sections where any problems with this aspect of care could be identified; this had not been completed to advise staff of the bruises and skin tears already sustained. Therefore, staff were not prompted to analyse transfers for any potential contributing factors and help to reduce risks further.

People spoke to us about their meals and drinks at Pennine Care Centre. People told us they had enough to drink. One person said, “I get plenty of drinks and the staff are always asking me what I want to drink.” One person told us they felt the food could do with improving however, they told us they enjoyed Friday’s food menu the best. We saw this was fish, chips and mushy peas or cheese and onion pie. Another person told us staff would make them a sandwich if they did not like what was on the menu.

Leaders told us they monitored the electronic record system used by staff to record what care they had provided. They said this helped them identify if something had not been done as planned or if something had not been done correctly and they could discuss this with staff to help them make the necessary improvements. As the assessments were not always fully completed, for example, risk of skin tears, we were not confident that leaders had the assurance they needed. Leaders told us they were still developing these systems to ensure it provided staff with the right prompts and to ensure effective oversight.

Whilst food charts showed people received fortified meals when at risk of malnutrition, they also showed some people had been given soup for both their main lunch and teatime on the same day or had only been given mash potato and vegetables for their main meals. Staff had not offered a person an alternative supper when their preferred option was unavailable. Another person’s records showed on one day they had not had breakfast or an afternoon snack. Leaders told us they had identified and noticed these issues and had discussed it with the relevant staff to try and improve people’s nutritional intake. However, at the time of our assessment these improvements had not yet been fully embedded and sustained. Where people were vegetarian, we saw staff had offered them both a meat and vegetarian meal. Leaders told us a choice of 2 vegetarian meals had not been made available for people who were vegetarian.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.