CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Church Farm Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during a targeted Covid-19 review.
The inspection took place without notice on 4 March 2021. It was a targeted review of infection prevention and control after concerns were received about these arrangements.
Inspectors found examples of good practice. Visiting was arranged by appointment, visitors took a lateral flow test and had their temperature checked, and a separate visiting room helped reduce the risk of infection spreading through the home.
The home was clean, used protective equipment stations, followed a cleaning schedule and cleaned equipment between uses. Inspectors said the home had arrangements for isolation, social distancing, testing, safe admissions and managing outbreaks.
This was not a full inspection and no overall quality rating was given. The safe question was recorded as inspected but not rated.
Safer visiting
Visits were planned by appointment and took place in a separate room, helping visitors meet people safely without walking through the home.
“A room was set aside for visits with an external door which meant visitors did not need to walk through the home.” from the report
Cleaning and equipment
Inspectors found the home clean, with regular protective equipment stations and a cleaning schedule. Equipment was cleaned between uses.
“The service was clean with personal protective equipment stations at regular intervals. A robust cleaning schedule was maintained.” from the report
Managing infection risks
The layout allowed people to isolate when needed and provided more space in shared areas. Inspectors were assured that outbreaks could be prevented or managed.
“The layout of the service had allowed for isolation when needed to prevent the risk of spread of infection.” from the report
Staff knowledge
Inspectors found that staff understood their infection prevention and control responsibilities.
“Staff were knowledgeable about their responsibilities with infection prevention and control.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits currently arranged, and is there still a separate visiting room?
- 02How do you test visitors and staff, and what happens when someone tests positive?
- 03How do you isolate people when needed and manage infection outbreaks?
- 04How often are communal areas and equipment cleaned, and how is this recorded?
- 05How do you keep your infection prevention and control policy up to date?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 March 2021 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 2018
Church Farm Care Home is rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some concerns about medicines, consent records and mealtime support.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 8 February 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, staff, visitors and healthcare professionals. They observed care, looked around the building and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home supported up to 60 older people, with 44 people living there during the inspection. Inspectors found that people were treated with kindness, respect and compassion. Care plans were generally well organised, risks were assessed, staff were trained and the building was clean and well maintained.
There were some areas to improve. Medicine rounds were interrupted and took a long time. Some medicine creams were not dated. Records about relatives' powers of attorney were inaccurate, and some people waited too long for help during lunch. Inspectors made recommendations, but did not record any breaches of regulations.
The overall rating was Good, and each of the five areas was also rated Good. The home remained Good after the previous inspection in July 2015.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Staff knew people well and supported their privacy and choices.
“People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect.” from the report
Risk management
The home assessed risks such as falls, nutrition and moving and handling. Staff had guidance on how to reduce harm while supporting independence.
“Risks in relation to people's daily lives were identified, assessed and planned to minimise the risk of harm whilst helping people to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Trained and supported staff
Staff received induction, regular training, supervision and appraisals. Staff said the management team supported them.
“Staff were supported by a system of induction training, supervision and appraisals.” from the report
Clean and maintained home
The building and equipment were regularly checked. Inspectors found the home clean, comfortable and free from unpleasant odours.
“We walked around the service which was comfortable and appeared clean with no odours.” from the report
Activities and personal interests
The home offered a varied programme, including activities at weekends and one-to-one activities for people in their rooms.
“There was a programme displayed for people advertising exercises, quizzes, music and magic shows.” from the report
Medicine rounds were interrupted
needs fixingThe morning medicine round took over two hours and the staff member was interrupted by telephone calls. Inspectors said this could increase the risk of errors and recommended a review of the process.
“The staff member carrying out the medicine round was carrying the telephone for the service and was interrupted on occasions by telephone calls.” from the report
Some creams were not dated
needs fixingSome prescribed creams were not dated when opened, and some labels could not be read. This meant staff could not tell when the creams should be disposed of.
“Some people had been prescribed creams and these had not always been dated upon opening.” from the report
Inaccurate power of attorney records
needs fixingSome care plans incorrectly said relatives had legal authority to make care decisions. This could mean people were involved in decisions or asked to sign consent forms when they did not have the appropriate authority.
“The records for some people held inaccurate information regarding the powers held by some relatives.” from the report
Waiting and limited support at lunch
needs fixingTwo people waited nearly an hour for their meal and did not get enough support to finish eating while the food was hot. Inspectors recommended reviewing mealtime support.
“Two people were seen waiting at their table for nearly an hour before the meal.” from the report
Limited signage for people with cognitive impairment
minorThere was no pictorial signage for important rooms, and bedroom numbers and names were small. This could make it harder for some people to find their way around independently.
“There was no pictorial signage which clearly identified specific rooms such as toilets and shower rooms.” from the report
- 01How have you reduced interruptions during medicine rounds since this inspection?
- 02How do you check that prescribed creams are dated when opened and removed at the right time?
- 03How do you confirm which relatives have legal authority to make care decisions or sign consent forms?
- 04What changes have you made to ensure people receive timely and suitable help during meals?
- 05Have you added pictorial signs or larger room labels for people who may have difficulty recognising their surroundings?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, but it did not examine the circumstances of a separate ongoing safeguarding investigation. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 February 2018 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 Church Farm Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 2010.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.