Pen Inney House

The service is on 2 floors with access to the upper floor via stairs or a stair lift. Some rooms have en-suite facilities and there are shared bathrooms, shower facilities and toilets. Shared living areas include a lounge, dining room, garden and patio seating area.

There were gaps in monitoring systems. For example, some people living at Pen Inney House were unable to make decisions in relation to their care and support due to their health. Restrictions had been put in place to keep people safe. Records to demonstrate the restrictions were in line with legislation had been archived and the restrictive practices were not being monitored. The manager assured us they would audit the restrictive practices in place and take steps to ensure these were reasonable, proportionate and in people's best interest.

Checks on fire equipment were carried out, however, the records to evidence these checks had taken place were not always completed. The records indicated a fault in equipment had been identified. It was not clear if any action had been taken to rectify this.

There were no systems in place for gathering feedback from people living at Pen Inney House, or their families.

Other audits had been completed, for example medicine administration records and accident and incident forms were checked regularly to identify any areas for improvement.

Risks were identified and recorded. Risk assessments and guidance for staff on how to minimise risks were not always available and we have made a recommendation about this in the report.

People told us they felt safe living at the service and they trusted staff and considered them skilled and competent. Training records showed staff training was up to date.

Pen Inney House was located in a rural village and there were strong links with the local community. Areas of the building were in need of updating and this was being planned. People's bedrooms were spacious. When identified as necessary, alterations had been made to ensure the environment met people's needs.

Staff told us they were well supported. They received regular supervision and the manager frequently worked alongside staff which allowed them to monitor staff skills and values. Staff told us morale was good and they had a shared set of values. They knew people well and understood their needs and preferences.