CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Blamster's Farm
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- The home had improved safeguarding, staffing, infection control and medicines systems. Inspectors still found two medicines record-keeping issues, although action was taken and the person was confirmed to have received the medicine.
- Effective?
- Good
- Training, care planning, health support and Mental Capacity Act processes had improved. Some new staff said they needed more shadowing before supporting people with complex needs alone.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion. Staff understood people's communication needs and supported privacy, dignity, independence and choice.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and updated as needs changed. People were supported with communication, activities, community access and relationships.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Leadership and governance were inconsistent across the houses. Audits did not always identify problems, and relatives and staff said communication needed to improve.
What inspectors found, September 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safer, kinder care, but leadership and quality checks were not consistent.
This was a follow-up inspection after the previous rating of Requires Improvement and breaches of regulations. Inspectors visited on 10 and 18 July 2023. They reviewed four of the five occupied houses, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and records.
The home had made substantial improvements. Staffing, training, infection control, medicines processes and support for people's choices had improved. Inspectors found people were safe, received effective care, were treated with kindness and had their individual needs met. The ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all Good.
Well-led remained Requires Improvement. Quality checks were not strong enough and leadership was uneven between the houses. The home was no longer in breach of regulations, but inspectors said further improvements were needed.
Less restrictive care
The home had reduced restrictive practices and the use of PRN medicines that affect behaviour, mood, thoughts or perception. People had more choice and control in their daily lives.
“A restrictive practice audit reflected a 63% reduction in the use of PRN psychotropic medicines from January 2022 to July 2023.” from the report
Improved staffing
Recruitment had reduced vacancies and reliance on temporary agency staff. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's additional one-to-one and two-to-one support hours.
“Since the last inspection the service had successfully recruited a significant number of new staff, reducing vacancies and the need to use temporary agency staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Staff knew people well and understood how they communicated. People were supported with dignity, privacy, independence and meaningful relationships.
“People were treated by staff with kindness, respect and compassion.” from the report
Personalised communication
People had individual communication plans and passports. Staff used different approaches, including pictures, social stories, speech devices and Makaton, to help people make choices.
“People had individual communication plans and passports detailing their preferred methods of communication.” from the report
Improved environment
The provider had invested in new kitchens, bathrooms, laundry facilities and boilers. Inspectors found the homes cleaner, safer and better maintained.
“These improvements ensured people received care and support in a safe, well equipped, well-furnished and well-maintained environment.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingService-level audits were not completed robustly enough. They failed to identify problems with confidential records, medicines, the environment, hazardous chemicals and vehicles.
“Audits at service level had not been robustly completed.” from the report
Uneven leadership
needs fixingOak and Green were operating better than Lodge, Coach House and Farmhouse. Leadership and governance were not consistent across all the houses.
“However, the registered managers were not providing equitable leadership for the Lodge, Coach House and Farmhouse, therefore leadership and governance arrangements were inconsistent across these houses.” from the report
Medicines record issues
needs fixingInspectors found two medicines record-keeping issues. The person had received the medicine, and managers took immediate action, but the findings show that checking systems still needed to improve.
“On checking a person's medicines records, we found 2 issues relating to record keeping, where staff had not followed the provider's medicines policy.” from the report
Unsafe chemical storage
seriousA COSHH cupboard containing harmful chemicals was unlocked when inspectors checked it. This was a safety risk that the home's audits had not identified.
“a control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH) cupboard was unlocked with harmful chemicals inside” from the report
Communication with families
needs fixingRelatives wanted more information about health conditions, referrals and appointment outcomes. Some relatives were also not told the outcomes of investigations after incidents.
“A common theme when talking with people's relatives and staff was communication needed to improve.” from the report
- 01Which house would my relative live in, and how is leadership currently provided there?
- 02What changes have been made to ensure audits identify medicines, record-keeping, vehicle and environmental problems promptly?
- 03How will you make sure new staff receive enough shadowing before supporting people with complex needs on their own?
- 04How will you keep relatives informed about health referrals, appointment outcomes and investigations after incidents?
- 05How often is the vehicle for the relevant house available, and what has been done about the repeated breakdowns?
This was a follow-up inspection covering four of the five occupied houses, with infection control and medicines management checked across the service; the Bungalow and Cottage were closed for refurbishment. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 September 2023 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.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks in staffing, infection control, care records and leadership, although immediate steps were taken.
This was the first inspection since the home registered under its current provider. Inspectors visited unannounced over four dates and reviewed six of the seven houses. They spoke with residents, relatives, staff, managers and a health professional, and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home was not always safe, effective, caring, responsive or well-led. Inspectors found poor cleanliness and infection control, unsafe environmental issues, gaps in medicines records, too few suitably skilled staff and high use of temporary agency staff. Care plans and staff training were not consistently up to date or used effectively.
There were also positive findings. Staff treated people with kindness and respected their privacy and dignity. The provider had recruited a new management team and took immediate action, including arranging deep cleaning and more infection control training. However, the changes had not yet been fully embedded.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that staff treated people kindly and respected their privacy, dignity and confidentiality. Some staff had developed good relationships with residents.
“People's privacy and dignity was promoted and respected by staff.” from the report
Support during COVID-19
Relatives said staff kept them informed during the pandemic. The home had enough personal protective equipment and was facilitating visits in line with guidance.
“Absolutely wonderful, they were in touch with me on the phone to tell me what was happening,” from the report
Some personalised information
Care plans included detailed information about people's sensory, mental health and physical needs, including short profiles to help staff understand how to support them.
“People's care plans contained in depth information about their sensory, mental health and physical needs.” from the report
Working with other services
The home worked with health professionals and had hospital communication passports to explain people's communication needs, preferences and dislikes.
“People's records showed the service worked well with health professionals.” from the report
Cleanliness and infection control
seriousInspectors found clutter, dust, debris, unsuitable storage of cleaning equipment and broken bins. These problems created infection and fire risks, although the provider arranged immediate deep cleaning and extra training.
“We found infection prevention and control was poor, specific concerns were identified in cleanliness and hygiene across the service, especially in bathrooms, kitchens and laundry areas.” from the report
Staff shortages and agency use
seriousThere were not enough suitably skilled staff, and high turnover and temporary agency use affected people's routines, activities, community access and family visits.
“The high turnover of staff and high use of temporary agency staff continued to impact on the services ability to meet people's needs and enable them to have choice and control in their daily lives.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingInspectors found gaps in records for some external medicines, missing fridge temperature records and outdated or inconsistent medicines information. The report recommended that medicines practice be reviewed.
“Some information listing people's prescribed medicines and the times they were scheduled for administration was out of date and inconsistent with their MAR charts.” from the report
Training and communication
needs fixingTraining was not consistently shown to have been understood or used in practice. Only six of 73 staff had completed Makaton training in the previous two years, affecting communication for some people.
“Training records showed six out of 73 staff had completed this training in the last 2 years.” from the report
Weak leadership and oversight
seriousFrequent management changes caused uncertainty, poor communication and low morale. Quality checks had not identified several important safety and maintenance problems.
“Systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service have not yet been fully embedded in the service to drive the required improvements.” from the report
Limited progress towards people's goals
needs fixingSome people were supported with activities, but others lacked stimulation or regular community access. Plans did not always set clear steps towards people's longer-term aims and independence.
“However, our observations and feedback from relatives identified not all people were meaningfully engaged and lacked stimulation.” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff now work in each house, and how often are temporary agency staff used?
- 02What evidence can you show that infection control, cleaning, laundry areas, bathrooms and maintenance problems have been fixed?
- 03How are medicines fridge temperatures, external medicines and medicines reviews now recorded and checked?
- 04Which staff are trained in Makaton and in supporting autistic people, and how is their practical competence assessed?
- 05What clear steps are in place to help my relative achieve their personal goals, access the community and try meaningful activities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and infection prevention and control, with care reviewed in six of the seven houses; it was the first inspection of the newly registered service. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 February 2022 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 Blamster's Farm
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2022Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 July 2020.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.