CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Farfield Drive
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that people felt safe, risks were assessed and reviewed, staffing was sufficient, and medicines were managed safely. Staff had safeguarding, infection control and other relevant training.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed before respite stays. Inspectors found improvements in mental capacity assessments and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications, as well as suitable staff training.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed to be warm, kind and respectful. People were involved in decisions about their care and supported to maintain privacy, dignity, independence and choice.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's likes, dislikes, communication needs and health information. Staff supported people to take part in activities and go into the community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an inclusive service with improved audits and oversight. People's views were gathered, staff discussed incidents and lessons learned, and the manager understood their regulatory responsibilities.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred respite care, with clear improvements since the previous inspection.
The inspection took place over two days and was announced 48 hours beforehand. One inspector spoke with two people using the service, one relative and five staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home provides short-break respite care for up to five people with a learning disability. Inspectors found people felt safe, staff knew them well, and people were treated with respect. Care plans, risk assessments and medicines records were in place, and staff had suitable training and experience.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous rating was Requires Improvement, with one breach. The report says improvements had been made and the home was no longer in breach of regulations.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Safeguarding systems, risk assessments and incident reviews were in place.
“Everyone we spoke with said they felt safe.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in everyday decisions and supported to choose activities, go into the community and develop independence.
“Throughout both days of inspection, we saw staff supported people in making their own decisions.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and were observed treating them with warmth, dignity and respect.
“Our observations throughout both days of inspection indicated that staff were warm, kind and caring in their interactions with people.” from the report
Improved oversight
Management audits had improved and helped resolve issues identified at the previous inspection. People's views and staff feedback were used to make changes.
“Internal audits were much improved, previous issues identified at the last inspection such as decisions regarding restrictive practice, had now been resolved due to better oversight.” from the report
Some people could become bored
minorFeedback included a request for more activities because one person could become bored. The report says this was addressed straight away.
“One comment stated more activities as [name of person] can get bored.” from the report
- 01How do you decide which activities and outings will suit my relative during a respite stay?
- 02What support will be available if my relative becomes bored or wants more activities?
- 03How will you check and record my relative's capacity to make specific decisions?
- 04How will you follow my relative's communication preferences and personal care choices?
- 05How will you share information with our family and other services to keep support consistent?
This was an announced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises; the inspector reviewed three people's care records, multiple medicines records and two staff files. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 December 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.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; care was safe, kind and responsive, but consent records and management oversight were not always good enough.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 15 and 19 October 2018. Inspectors spoke with people using the short-break service and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, kind care, person-centred plans and activities that reflected people's interests.
It was rated Requires Improvement for Effective and Well-led. Where people could not make some decisions, capacity assessments, best-interest records and some DoLS applications were missing. The home breached Regulation 11 on consent.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. The home had previously been rated Good, but inspectors found that this level had not been maintained.
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines were checked by two staff when people arrived, and staff competency checks were completed. Staffing levels were adjusted to meet people's needs.
“Medicines were managed safely and people told us they received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive relationships. Staff respected privacy, dignity, individual preferences and people's wishes about how they were supported in public.
“Staff were aware of people's individual preferences.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, communication methods and comforting routines. People helped plan activities and choose what they wanted to do.
“Person centred care plans had been developed with people.” from the report
Community activities
People were supported to take part in trips, local events, education, volunteering and activities linked to their interests.
“People accessing respite services told us they participated in activities.” from the report
Consent records were incomplete
seriousFor some people who lacked capacity, the home had not recorded decision-specific capacity assessments or best-interest decisions. Some DoLS applications had also not been made.
“We found capacity assessments had not always been carried out.” from the report
Management oversight
needs fixingThe provider had not identified the need for capacity assessments and DoLS applications through its oversight systems. A new manager was also still applying to become registered.
“We found the provider did not have oversight of the need to apply the Mental Capacity Act and the application of DoLS.” from the report
One incomplete hospital passport
minorOne hospital passport did not fully describe the person's communication and personal care needs. The manager agreed to add the missing details.
“We did find one hospital passport which had not been fully completed as the person's communication and personal care needs had not been recorded.” from the report
- 01Have capacity assessments now been completed for every person who may lack capacity to make a specific decision?
- 02Have all required best-interest decisions been recorded, including decisions about medicines and restrictive practices?
- 03Have all necessary DoLS applications been made, and can you show us the current position?
- 04Has the incomplete hospital passport been updated with the person's communication and personal care needs?
- 05What checks now make sure these records remain complete and are reviewed when people's needs change?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the home, care and management, with all five CQC questions rated during the visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 December 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 Farfield Drive
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 August 2015.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leeds
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 £980 to £1,250 a week. 89 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Took his time to learn about me read my care plan and to listen to me. great companionship with lots of laughing.”
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.