CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Faricare Ltd
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some medicines were not administered as prescribed, and risk assessments were missing for a person at risk of skin complications. There were enough staff, suitable recruitment checks and infection control arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had completed relevant training and received regular supervision. People were supported with food, health care, communication, consent and accessible premises.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people's independence, choices, cultural needs and relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and people were supported with activities, community access, communication and contact with family and friends. A complaints procedure was in place.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The culture was described as open and positive, but quality systems were not robust enough. Audits had not checked care plans properly, so some shortfalls in risk assessments were not identified.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Faricare Ltd is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but medicines, risk assessments and quality checks were not always reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection at the new premises. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and the manager. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, training and quality records.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were treated with respect, involved in choices and supported with health care, food, activities, communication and relationships. There were enough staff, and recruitment and infection control arrangements were in place.
Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Some medicines were not given as prescribed, and important risk assessments were missing. Audits did not always identify these problems. The home had improved since the previous premises inspection, but the report says there was still limited assurance about safety and an increased risk that people could be harmed.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff supported privacy, independence and personal choices.
“People were well settled, happy and were able to speak to staff with ease.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and saw staff respond quickly when people needed help.
“There were appropriate numbers of staff on duty to support people safely.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. People were involved in decisions about their routines and care.
“Care plans were person centred. Care plans were personalised and included information on how to support people in a number of areas such as personal care, nutrition and activities.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could choose activities, go into the community and maintain relationships with family and friends.
“People were able to maintain relationships with family and friends.” from the report
Improvement since the previous premises
Inspectors found improvements in care plans, premises safety and meeting cultural needs compared with the earlier inspection at the previous premises.
“During this inspection, we found improvements had been made with care plans, premises safety and meeting people's cultural needs.” from the report
Medicines were not always given as prescribed
seriousRecords showed that one person's prescribed cream was given once a day instead of twice a day. An allergy was also not recorded on the medicine administration record.
“Medicines were not being managed safely at all times.” from the report
Missing risk assessments
seriousA risk assessment was missing for a person at risk of skin complications. The assessment for safe bathing and showering was also not complete at the time of inspection, although it was completed afterwards.
“Sufficient risk assessments were not in place to ensure people received safe care at the time of the inspection.” from the report
Quality checks did not find problems
needs fixingThe home had introduced audits, but care-plan audits had not been completed. This meant some problems with risk assessments had not been identified and acted on.
“However, audits had not been completed on care plans to ensure shortfalls could be identified and action taken such as with our findings with risk assessments.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure every medicine is given at the prescribed time and frequency?
- 02How are allergies now recorded on medicine administration records?
- 03Which risk assessments are now in place for people at risk of skin complications or needing support with bathing?
- 04Have the promised weekly medicine audits and care-plan audits started, and can the home show their results?
- 05How will the home check that improvements identified after the previous warning notice remain in place?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key questions at the new premises, including infection prevention and control, to check improvements since the previous premises inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 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 Faricare Ltd
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- December 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 June 2021.
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 Redbridge
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. 75 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.