Penbownder House

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement.

At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

People were protected from abuse and staff had the skills necessary to meet their needs. Risks associated with people’s support needs had been mitigated and there were systems to ensure safe transfers of care.

However, the environment was not always safe, infection control risks were not constantly mitigated and opportunities for learning had been missed.

These issues contributed to a breach of the regulations in relation to governance detailed further in the well led section of the report.

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement.

At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

People’s capacity to make decision had been appropriately assessed and the service now operated in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good.

At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

Staff provided support with kindness and compassion and people were supported to maintain their independence.

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The were variations in the quality of care and support to engage with activities people received in different areas of the service.

The service’s overall performance had improved since our last inspection and people’s care plans were now accurate and up to date. However, the support provided to people on the first floor of the older person’s service required further improvement. This meant the service remained in breach of the regulations in relation to person-centred care.

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement.

At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

Governance systems were not effective, and managers had failed to act on audits or identify areas of improvement following incidents that occurred.

The service was in breach of the regulation in relation to governance at the service.