CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Farmhouse Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found gaps in risk assessments, including for diabetes and behaviour that could put someone at risk. They also found an unsecured window restrictor, an incomplete employment history and missing records for cleaning some high-touch areas.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and care plans gave staff useful information. Staff received training and supervision, people were supported with food and healthcare, and their choices were generally respected.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. Inspectors observed warm and friendly interactions and found that people were involved in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised to people's routines, preferences and communication needs. People were supported with activities, community visits, relationships and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had systems to monitor care, medicines, cleaning, infection control and health and safety. People, relatives, staff and health professionals spoke positively about the management and communication.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but safety checks and risk records needed improvement.
This was the first inspection of the newly registered home. It was unannounced and took place on 29 and 30 March 2022. The inspector spoke with eight residents, six relatives, six staff members and two health professionals. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, staff recruitment files and management records.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. People and relatives described caring staff, suitable support, good food and activities that helped people stay involved in the community.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors were not assured that all risks were assessed and managed properly. They also found one incomplete employment history and gaps in cleaning records. Some issues were corrected during or after the inspection, but the report says there was limited assurance about safety.
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew residents as individuals and supported their privacy, dignity, independence and choices. Inspectors observed positive, warm interactions.
“All the interactions we observed between people and staff were positive and friendly.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's needs and how they wanted to receive support. Staff understood individual routines, likes and dislikes.
“Care plans provided comprehensive information about how people wished to receive care and support.” from the report
Good food and support
People and relatives were very positive about the food. Staff offered choices and supported people appropriately at mealtimes.
“There was a relaxed atmosphere in the dining room, the meal was unhurried, and people chatted with each other and with staff.” from the report
Community involvement
Residents were supported to go out, attend local activities and take part in activities within the home. Staff also provided individual activities.
“Supporting people to access the local community. Being proactive in supporting people to maximise their own health and wellbeing” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Medicines were stored securely and records showed they had been given as prescribed. Staff were trained and checked for competence.
“Medicine administration records (MARs) confirmed people had received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Incomplete risk assessments
seriousInspectors were not assured that all risks linked to people's needs were assessed and managed. This included limited information about diabetes and no risk assessment for behaviour that could affect the person or staff.
“We were not assured that risks to people had been assessed and plans implemented to reduce them.” from the report
Window safety
seriousEmpty rooms had window restrictors that were not attached. Inspectors said someone could have been at risk of falling, although the restrictors were added when this was raised.
“This meant that a person could walk into an empty room and be at risk of falling.” from the report
Recruitment record gap
needs fixingOne staff file did not contain a full employment history when inspectors checked it. The history was obtained on the second day of the inspection.
“However, one person did not have a full employment history.” from the report
Cleaning records
needs fixingRecords did not always show whether high-touch areas such as light switches and handrails had been cleaned. The home put this recording in place after the issue was identified.
“However, cleaning records of high touch point areas for example light switches or handrails were not always kept.” from the report
Dementia training
minorNot many staff had completed dementia training. The provider knew about this and had plans for further training.
“However, not many staff had completed training in dementia, but the provider was aware and plans were in place for further training.” from the report
- 01What risk assessments are now in place for residents with diabetes or behaviour that may put themselves or others at risk?
- 02How are window restrictors checked, and how often are other environmental safety checks reviewed?
- 03Have all staff recruitment files been checked to confirm that employment histories and other required checks are complete?
- 04How do you record cleaning of high-touch areas such as handrails and light switches?
- 05How many staff have now completed dementia training, and what further training is planned?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five CQC questions, the premises and care provided, with infection prevention and control also examined. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 May 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.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control arrangements, but a BAME staff risk assessment had not yet been completed.
This was a targeted inspection on 25 February 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic. The visit was announced in advance.
Inspectors found good practice in several areas. The home had closed to visitors early in the pandemic, staff were completing infection-control training, new uniforms had been provided, and a machine had been bought to sanitise whole rooms.
Inspectors were assured about visitor controls, shielding, social distancing, admissions, personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning, outbreak arrangements and the infection-control policy. However, a risk assessment for staff from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds had not yet been completed.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not provide a full overall quality rating or ratings for all five areas of care.
Early visitor restrictions
The home stopped visitors before the Government directive, as part of its efforts to reduce infection risks.
“The home closed to visitors on 10 March 2020, ahead of the Government directive to close to keep people safe.” from the report
Staff infection-control training
All staff had signed up for a substantial infection prevention and control course.
“All staff had signed up to complete a 12 week course called 'Principles of prevention and control of infection in health care settings.'” from the report
Measures to reduce contamination
New uniforms were provided to reduce the risk of contamination from clothing worn outside the home.
“Staff were provided with new uniforms to limit outside contamination from their clothes.” from the report
Room sanitising equipment
The provider had bought equipment intended to decontaminate whole rooms quickly.
“The provider had purchased a sanitising machine enabling whole rooms to be de-contaminated quickly.” from the report
Outstanding staff risk assessment
needs fixingInspectors found that a risk assessment for staff from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds had not yet been completed. The provider said it would be done after the inspection.
“We noted during the inspection that the provider had not yet carried out a Black Asian Minority Ethnic (BAME) risk assessment for staff in this category.” from the report
- 01Has the BAME risk assessment for staff now been completed, and what actions came from it?
- 02How are visitors currently managed to prevent infection?
- 03How often are staff tested, and how are test results acted on?
- 04How is personal protective equipment provided and checked?
- 05How does the home manage a possible infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other quality areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 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.
Every inspection of Farmhouse Care Home
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 November 2019.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.