We gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions: is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led? Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us.
If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
During our inspection of Penmount Grange we saw evidence to support a judgement that this service was safe.
People were treated with dignity and respect by the staff. Some of the comments received from people who lived at Penmount Grange included 'the staff are patient, polite and caring, they are as good as gold', 'I have no complaints'.
People were safe because staff knew what to do when complaints were raised and where concerns had been raised we found the home had taken appropriate action to ensure people were safe from harm. People told us they would feel able to 'speak their minds'.
We saw Penmount Grange understood the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
We found there was enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. We were told the service regularly monitored people's needs and adjusted staffing levels to meet people's needs if they changed.
Is the service effective?
During our inspection of Penmount Grange we saw evidence to support a judgement that this service was effective.
People's health and care needs were assessed and mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. Staff we spoke with and observed showed they had good knowledge of the people they supported.
The home worked with other services to ensure people's health needs were met. This included professionals such as GPs, dieticians, tissue viability nurses and district nurses.
People were asked for their consent for any care or treatment and the home acted in accordance with their wishes. Where the home assessed people that did not have the capacity to consent, they acted in accordance with legal requirements.
We spoke with two visitors and they confirmed they were able to visit the home whenever they wished.
Is the service caring?
During our inspection of Penmount Grange we saw evidence to support a judgement that this service was caring.
We saw and heard staff ask permission and then explain what was going to happen when they provided care. For example, 'is that okay?', 'may I?' and 'please can you?' We saw staff paid attention to the choices we all make in daily lives, such as 'would you like salt and pepper?' or 'would you like some sugar in your tea?' We observed staff responded to people in a kind and sensitive manner.
People's individual care plans recorded their choices and preferred routines for assistance with their personal care and daily living. Where people were unable to be communicate their choices the home had worked with people's families to write details of their known daily routines on their behalf. We saw staff provided support in accordance with people's wishes.
Is the service responsive?
During our inspection of Penmount Grange we saw evidence to support a judgement that this service was responsive.
People confirmed they could have what they wanted at meals if they did not like what was offered. People were able to take part in a range of group and individual activities such as dancing, bingo, crosswords, painting and craft work.
People who used the service and their representatives were asked for their views about their care and treatment.
Is the service well-led?
During our inspection of Penmount Grange we saw evidence to support a judgement that this service was well-led.
We were able to talk with staff and they were all positive in their attitude on how the home was organised and run and we were told by two staff members that it was a good home and they enjoyed working there.