• Care Home
  • Care home

Penwortham Grange and Lodge

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Martinfield Road, Penwortham, Preston, Lancashire, PR1 9HL (01772) 748576

Provided and run by:
Orchard Care Homes.Com (6) Limited

Report from 3 June 2024 assessment

On this page

Effective

Good

Updated 9 September 2024

Staff assessed and reviewed people's health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People's care was delivered in line with legislation and evidence-based practice. Staff worked effectively with other services and supported people with their wider health needs. The provider monitored people's care and treatment to help make improvements. Staff understood the importance of seeking consent prior to caring tasks and talked to people about what they were doing.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Assessing needs

Score: 3

People said they were involved in assessments and reviews of their care. A person said, "They chat to me about my needs."

The manager told us care plans were completed prior to admission and reviewed thoroughly during 'resident of the month'. There was a care review every 12 months which people and their relatives were invited to. Staff said they were involved in care plans and reviews and told us about a new initiative to encourage the production of high quality care plans which was working well.

Files were audited every month which we saw evidence of. There were relevant policies in place to make sure high quality assessments were undertaken followed by regular reviews.

Delivering evidence-based care and treatment

Score: 3

The manager told us the service delivered care that is important to people by spending time with them or their family to get to know them. The managers were aware of relevant legislation and evidenced based practice, and kept up to date with alerts, policies and procedures.

We saw relevant policies and approaches, for example nationally recognised tools to monitor people's weight and nutritional status. The provider had protocols and guidance for staff to follow for different health needs and risks, such as if someone had a fall or head injury. There was a falls prevention policy and staff completed post falls observations when required.

How staff, teams and services work together

Score: 3

Several people told us the staff work together well as a team. A person said, "Everyone knows everybody, what they like and don’t like, and they also get to know your family." People told us they had access to a GP and a dentist. People said that the optician and chiropodist visited them.

There were daily staff meetings to share information and make sure actions had been taken. Staff made referrals to other health professionals where appropriate, such as dieticians and the falls team. The GP visited weekly to undertake a ward round and the service was supported by local agencies.

Supporting people to live healthier lives

Score: 3

People told us that staff monitored their health, for example their weight and checked for any problems with their skin that could worsen if not treated. People and their relatives said the food seemed healthy.

The provider employed an activities coordinator who supported people to be active both in and outside of the home. The provider contracted a local service to support people to take part in armchair exercises, and staff could help people to continue with this. People were supported with their faith from local faith groups.

Monitoring and improving outcomes

Score: 3

Staff confirmed they filled in charts about weight and measured people's clinical observations. Staff made referrals to other health professionals if required.

The managers and staff monitored people's health outcomes such as falls, weight and skin integrity. Senior managers looked at this on a monthly basis as part of the clinical governance process to make sure people's needs were being met.

People told us they were asked for consent for decisions like having a flu vaccine. People said that staff talked to them while they were undertaking caring tasks.

Staff said they completed training about the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and knew about the process for making decisions. A staff member said, "If someone refuses support, we document it and go back in 30 mins, repeat and inform a senior. We might try different things like knock on the door and ask if they are ready to get dressed, help guide them and choose what to wear." The manager told us, "Care plans will state if the person has been assessed to be able to consent to a specific decision. If consent can’t be gained a mental capacity assessment and best interests decision is documented in the care plan. We do however still ask for consent before support is provided. Any written consent is uploaded to the person care plan."

There was an appropriate consent policy and relevant training for staff was up to date. We saw evidence of mental capacity assessments and consent forms in people's care records. We saw evidence that the manager made applications to the local authority to legally deprive someone of their liberty if there were risks.