CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Deansbrook Farm
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including visiting, testing, protective equipment, cleaning, ventilation and the infection control policy.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in the report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in the report, although inspectors noted that the home involved people in choosing new hobbies during the pandemic.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in the report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in the report.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Deansbrook Farm was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and safe arrangements for visits during the pandemic.
The inspection took place on 13 May 2021 and was announced. It was a targeted inspection about infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, not a full inspection of all aspects of care.
Inspectors found that the home had measures to support safe visiting, social distancing, shielding, testing and the safe use of protective equipment. They were also assured that communal areas were cleaned and ventilated, and that the infection control policy was up to date.
The home supported people's wellbeing when usual activities stopped. People were involved in choosing hobbies such as bird watching, building an insect house and creating a library.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a new overall quality rating or full ratings for all five areas of care.
Safe visiting
The home had arrangements to allow visits while following government guidance.
“The provider had put measures in place to safely enable visitors back into the service, in line with government guidelines.” from the report
Support for wellbeing
When usual activities were not possible, staff involved people in choosing new hobbies and activities.
“When people had been unable to continue their regular activities, staff had involved people in choosing new hobbies including bird watching, building an insect house and creating a library.” from the report
Infection control checks
The home carried out regular checks on infection control, including protective equipment, cleaning and ventilation.
“The provider completed regular infection prevention and control audits to ensure the service was following the correct procedures.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now, and how often are they audited?
- 02How are visits currently managed, including any testing, protective equipment or social distancing arrangements?
- 03How does the home support people to continue hobbies and activities when their usual routines change?
- 04How are communal areas cleaned and ventilated now?
- 05Can we see the home's latest full CQC ratings or inspection report, as this inspection was not a full assessment?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the report did not assess the other areas fully. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 May 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, July 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, while end-of-life plans were still being developed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 24 May 2019. One inspector and one assistant inspector reviewed records, medicines, staff files and management systems. They spoke with two people, staff, managers and professionals, and later spoke with three relatives.
The home supported eight people with learning disabilities or autism, although it was registered for ten. Inspectors found that risks, medicines and staffing were managed safely. People received personalised support, had choices about daily life, and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating and the same rating in each area as the previous inspection, published on 8 November 2016.
Safe support
Risks were identified and managed well, including risks linked to distress, self-harm, finances, the community and vehicles. Staff used the least restrictive approaches described in people's plans.
“Risks to people were anticipated and managed well to keep them safe.” from the report
Medicines and quality of life
Medicines were checked against records and were given as prescribed. The home was involved in work to reduce unnecessary psychotropic medicines.
“Reducing these medicines was helping people to stay well and have a good quality of life.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw natural, respectful interactions. Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, preferences and independence.
“Staff had developed good relationships with people using the service.” from the report
Choice and activities
People were supported to choose food, activities and how to spend their time. They were helped to maintain family relationships and develop independence.
“People were supported to follow interests and to take part in activities socially and culturally relevant to them.” from the report
Open management
The home had systems to monitor quality, learn from incidents and involve staff, families and other professionals.
“There continues to be a positive, open and inclusive culture in the service.” from the report
Larger than current guidance
minorThe home was larger than current best practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said the building and surrounding area reduced the possible negative impact, but families may want to consider whether its size suits their relative.
“The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties.” from the report
Ongoing premises work
minorMaintenance and redecoration were still in progress because of damage linked to some people's behaviours. One relative also said air conditioning and toilets could be improved.
“Improvements had been made to the décor and premises, however, due to destructive behaviours of some of the people using the service, maintenance and redecoration of the premises was ongoing.” from the report
End-of-life planning
minorNo one was approaching the end of life at the time of inspection, but the home was still developing plans to record people's wishes and choices.
“Work was in progress to develop End of Life care plans to ensure people's wishes would be taken into account at such time.” from the report
- 01What progress has been made with end-of-life care plans, and how will my relative's wishes be recorded?
- 02What maintenance and redecoration work remains outstanding, and how is the home kept comfortable while this is completed?
- 03How does the size of the home affect daily life, privacy and individual support?
- 04How are psychotropic medicines reviewed and reduced where appropriate?
- 05How will my relative be involved in decisions about activities, food, healthcare and their care plan?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the care provided, the premises, records, staffing, medicines and management systems; all five ratings were assessed and remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 July 2019 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 Deansbrook Farm
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 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.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 January 2011.
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.