CQC report explained · a residential care home
Penberth House
29 Penberth Road, Catford, London, SE6 1ET
Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People had risk assessments and plans covering their mental and physical health, medical conditions and nutritional needs. Staffing and recruitment were safe, but inspectors found some unexplained gaps in medicines administration records and recommended better auditing.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating, but that rating is not stated in this report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating, but that rating is not stated in this report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating, but that rating is not stated in this report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider had systems to monitor care, update records and involve people in care planning. Staff meetings, training and contact with health and social care professionals supported the service.
What inspectors found, April 2024
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-led care, with a recommendation to improve medicines audits.
This was a focused inspection carried out on 27 October, 24 November and 14 December 2023. Inspectors spoke with two people, staff and managers, reviewed three care records, checked recruitment records and examined how the home was managed.
The home supports up to three people with mental health conditions. Inspectors found people were safe, had care plans covering their needs and were supported by enough suitable staff. Medicines were given safely, but some medicines records had unexplained gaps.
The home was rated Good overall, with Safe and Well-led also rated Good. The Safe and Well-led ratings stayed the same as at the previous inspection in 2017. The other three areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used for the overall rating.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns. Risk assessments and management plans covered known risks.
“People we spoke with said they felt safe living at the service.” from the report
Enough suitable staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff on duty. Recruitment checks, including right-to-work and criminal record checks, were completed.
“The provider ensured there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to provide care and support to people safely.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans identified people's support needs and people were involved in developing them. Staff helped people access education, employment and new skills.
“Each person had an assessment and care plan in place that clearly identified their support needs.” from the report
Good management oversight
Managers used audits, staff meetings and training to monitor care and support improvement. Staff also worked with health and social care professionals when people's needs changed.
“The provider had created a learning culture at the service which improved the people's care experience including the quality of care.” from the report
Medicines records had gaps
needs fixingSome medicines administration records had unexplained gaps. The provider investigated after the inspection, but CQC recommended reviewing medicines audits so problems are found sooner.
“People's medicine administration records (MARs) showed some unexplained gaps in those records.” from the report
- 01What caused the unexplained gaps in medicines administration records, and what checks have been introduced since the inspection?
- 02How often are medicines audits completed, and who reviews the results?
- 03How will you involve my relative in developing and reviewing their care plan?
- 04How would staff support my relative to access education, employment or community activities?
- 05How do staff work with health and social care professionals if my relative's mental health needs change?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried over from the previous inspection when calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 April 2024 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Penberth House
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.
Or stay at home with a private carer
Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.
Other services run by Penberth House Ltd
1 other service on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.