Pennington Court is a care home for younger people with a learning disability. It can accommodate up to eight people. Each room is a self-contained unit with bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and lounge area. Accommodation is over three floors that is accessed by a passenger lift. There is also a communal lounge and kitchen and accessible well managed gardens. The service is situated in Maltby, near Rotherham. At the time of our inspection there were seven people living at the service.

At the last inspection in May 2015, the service was rated overall good with one domain rated as requires improvement. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons.’ Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Some people we spoke with had limited verbal communication. However, they very clearly indicated they felt safe and were happy living in the home, liked the staff and did the activities they liked to do.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Medication procedures were in place including protocols for the use of ‘as and when required’ (PRN) medications. Staff had received training in medication management and medication was audited in line with the provider’s procedures. There was good guidance for staff regarding how people expressed pain or discomfort, so they could respond appropriately and seek input from health care professionals, if necessary. People had access to a good range of health care services and staff actively advocated for people if they felt health care services were not as responsive as they should be.

Staff we spoke with had a clear understanding of safeguarding people and they were confident their managers and the rest of their team would act appropriately to safeguard people from abuse.

The support plans we looked at included risk assessments, which identified any risks, associated with people’s care and had been devised to help minimise and monitor the risks without placing undue restrictions on people.

There were enough staff to keep people safe and to meet people’s individual needs, and the staff told us they received good training and support. Staff retention was good, and staff knew people well and had built good relationships. There was also a good mix of staff in relation to such things as gender and ethnicity.

People were encouraged to make decisions about meals, and were supported to go shopping and be involved in menu planning. We saw people were involved and consulted about all aspects of their care and support, where they were able, including suggestions for activities and holidays.

Staff spoke with people in a caring and positive way, treated people with respect and were mindful of their rights and dignity. There was a nice, relaxed atmosphere and people were relaxed and smiling in the staff’s presence.

The complaints process was clear and people’s comments and complaints were taken very seriously, investigated and responded to in a timely way. People didn’t have any complaints to tell us about and indicated they were happy living at the service. Relatives we spoke with raised no concerns about the care provided at the service.

The registered manager was person centred in his approach. Person centred care is when staff understand what is important to the person and give them the right care and support to do the things they want. The staff we met were very enthusiastic and professional, and were good communicators. They told us they were well supported by the management team. It was clear from staff’s res

This inspection took place on 6 and 11 May 2015 and was unannounced on the first day. The home was previously inspected in April 2014 and the service was meeting the regulations we looked at. However, the provider name was changed in July 2014 so this was the first inspection under the current provider name.

Pennington Court is a care home for younger people with a learning disability. It can accommodate up to eight people. Each room is a self-contained unit with bedroom, bathroom, kitchen and lounge area. There is also a communal lounge and kitchen and accessible well managed gardens. The service is situated in Maltby, near Rotherham. At the time of our inspection there were six people living at the service.

The home has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons.’ Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Most people we spoke with liked living at Pennington court. They told us they felt safe staying at the service and the staff were considerate.

Medicines were stored safely and procedures were in place to ensure medicines were administered safely.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) includes decisions about depriving people of their liberty so that if a person lacks capacity they get the care and treatment they need where there is no less restrictive way of achieving this. The Mental Capacity Act Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) requires providers to submit applications to a ‘Supervisory Body’ for authority to deprive people of, or restrict their liberty. We found all staff we spoke with were very knowledgeable on the requirements of this legislation and had already assessed people who accessed the services to determine if an application was required. Five of the people who used the service had a DoLS in place. However these were not always being followed to protect people.

People’s needs had been identified, and from talking to people who used the service, we found people’s needs were met by staff who knew them well. Care records we saw were very detailed and clearly explained people’s needs.

There was a robust recruitment system and all staff had completed an induction. Staff had received formal supervision and had an up to date annual appraisal of their work performance.

There were systems in place for monitoring quality, which were effective. Where improvements were needed, these were addressed and followed up to ensure continuous improvement.

The registered manager told us they had received no complaints. The registered manager was aware of how to respond to a complaint if required, information on how to report complaints was clearly displayed in the entrance area. People we spoke with did not raise any complaints or concerns about staying at the service. Staff and people who used the service who we spoke with told us the registered manager was approachable, there was an open door policy and the service was well led.