CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Eastfield Farm Residential Home Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks, safeguarding concerns, medicines, equipment and fire safety were managed through records, checks and staff training.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisal. People were supported with their health, mental capacity decisions, food, drinks and dietary needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind and respectful interactions. People were involved in choices about their care, and staff supported privacy, dignity and communication.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were based on individual needs and activities reflected people's interests. One piece of advice was missing from staff records, but the records were updated during the inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was registered with CQC and was described as approachable. Audits, meetings, feedback and action plans were used to monitor and improve the home.
What inspectors found, August 2018
Previously in special measures, but now rated Good; inspectors found sustained improvements with minor record and room odour issues.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 July 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found safe medicines support, suitable staffing, trained staff, kind care, personalised support and regular quality checks.
The home had previously been in special measures. That ended after the December 2017 inspection. This inspection checked whether improvements had lasted, and inspectors found that they had.
The home was clean overall, but three bedrooms had unpleasant odours. The provider arranged replacement flooring. Inspectors also found one piece of advice was missing from the records used by staff, and this was corrected during the inspection.
Improvements lasted
Inspectors checked the changes made after the previous inspection and found they had been maintained.
“During this inspection we checked and found evidence the provider had sustained the actions for improvement of the service from our last inspection.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Staff were assessed as competent to give medicines. Records, guidance and audits supported safe medicines management.
“Medicines were managed and administered according to national guidelines and best practice by staff who had been assessed as competent in this role.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with dignity and respect. Inspectors observed staff responding quickly and gently when someone was distressed.
“People were treated with dignity and respect by staff who understood the importance of this.” from the report
Activities and personal choice
People could take part in activities such as games, music, gardening, walks and outings, according to their interests.
“People continued to enjoy activities of their choosing and live fulfilled lives.” from the report
Odours in bedrooms
minorThree bedrooms had unpleasant odours, although the provider had arranged new flooring and later supplied evidence that the work was completed.
“However, we noticed odours in three of the bedrooms.” from the report
Care information was missing
needs fixingAdvice about supporting one person's behaviour had not been copied into the records used by staff. The records and audit process were updated during the inspection.
“advice to support one person to better manage their behaviour had not been transferred to records that staff used.” from the report
One record was out of date
minorInspectors found one instance where information did not reflect current needs. It was corrected during the inspection.
“We found one instance where information was not up to date but this was remedied during our inspection.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure advice about a person's behaviour and changing needs is added promptly to all staff records?
- 02Have the replacement floors in the three bedrooms remained effective in preventing unpleasant odours?
- 03What evidence can you show that the improvements made after the previous special measures period have continued?
- 04How do you check that electronic care records are complete and accurate every day?
- 05How are families involved in care plan reviews, complaints and decisions about activities?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five key questions, including the accommodation and care provided; it also checked whether improvements since December 2017 had been sustained. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 August 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.
What inspectors found, February 2018
Rated Requires Improvement and now out of Special Measures; the home had made clear improvements but records still needed to become consistently reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 and 21 December 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and visiting health professionals. They observed care, looked around the home and checked care, medicines, staffing and other records.
The home had acted on the breaches found at the June 2017 inspection. Inspectors found better staffing, cleaner surroundings, safer medicines practice, improved care planning and more activities. People said care, communication and support had improved.
All five areas were still rated Requires Improvement. This was because the improvements had not yet been shown over a long enough period as consistent good practice. The home was no longer rated Inadequate or in Special Measures.
Safer medicines practice
Medicines were administered as prescribed. Body maps were introduced to record where pain relief patches and creams were applied.
“This meant people received this medicine safely as prescribed.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and did not have unpleasant smells. Laundry and cleaning arrangements had also been improved.
“At this inspection the home was found to be clean and free from any unpleasant odours.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff protecting people's privacy and dignity, offering reassurance and helping people according to their wishes.
“During our walk around the home we observed staff knocking on doors to people's rooms and waited for a response before entering.” from the report
Care information was not always current
needs fixingSome records did not reflect changes in people's needs at the point staff would look for the information. The manager updated records when inspectors raised this.
“However, we had some concerns where we found information was recorded as a person's needs had changed but had not been updated in the key information on the 'all about me' form.” from the report
Some daily weights were missed
needs fixingNot all required daily weights had been recorded. This could mean staff did not always have accurate information to guide support.
“However, we found some concerns where daily weights had not been completed.” from the report
One consent record was incorrect
needs fixingOne care plan appeared to have been signed as consented to by a relative who did not have the legal authority to make that decision. The manager said it would be corrected.
“However, where one person was unable to consent to their care, the care plan had been signed as consented to by their relative.” from the report
Appraisals were not complete
minorStaff received regular supervision, but not everyone had received an annual appraisal at the time of inspection.
“Staff records we looked at confirmed that not all staff had received an annual appraisal.” from the report
Further end of life work planned
needs fixingThe home said it still needed to improve how end of life wishes were discussed and recorded, including further staff training.
“We need to complete further work around end of life care.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure care records are updated immediately when a person's needs change?
- 02How do you check that daily weights and other health monitoring records are completed every time they are needed?
- 03What is the current position on staff annual appraisals and supervision?
- 04How are consent and best interest decisions recorded for people who cannot make particular decisions themselves?
- 05What further training or support has been put in place for end of life care discussions and recording people's wishes?
This unannounced inspection checked whether improvements had addressed the previous breaches and also assessed the overall quality of the home across all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 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 Eastfield Farm Residential Home Limited
5 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Eastfield Farm Residential Home Limited →
- February 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Eastfield Farm Residential Home Limited →
- August 2017Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 April 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
16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of Yorkshire
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 £1,030 to £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
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.