CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Farnham Common House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risk assessments, staffing arrangements, recruitment checks, premises checks and medicines systems were generally appropriate.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received appropriate support with food, drink and healthcare. Staff had induction, training, supervision and appraisal, and the home supported people's choices under the law.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and knew people's needs and backgrounds. People were involved in decisions and their privacy, dignity and independence were upheld.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The home provided personalised care, activities and accessible information. However, some important health needs and palliative care needs were not clearly set out in separate care plans.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an experienced registered manager, a positive staff culture and quality checks. Inspectors found inconsistencies in care records, including gaps in monitoring charts.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Farnham Common House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some care records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection over 13 and 18 February 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, a relative, staff and social care professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, complaints and safety records. They also observed care, activities and mealtimes.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found kind staff, safe premises, appropriate medicines support, suitable training and good access to healthcare. People were supported to make choices and were treated with dignity and respect.
Inspectors found some weaknesses in record keeping. Important health needs, including diabetes and swallowing difficulties, were not always clearly recorded. Palliative and end of life care plans were not detailed enough. Inspectors made recommendations about these areas, but found the legal requirements were met.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives gave consistently positive feedback. Staff spoke kindly, understood people's needs and protected their privacy and dignity.
“People were cared for by kind and caring staff who understood the support they required.” from the report
Safe environment
The premises and equipment were checked and maintained. Fire safety arrangements, emergency plans and infection control systems were in place.
“The premises were maintained well. Gas, electricity and water supplies were checked to ensure they conformed to acceptable safety standards.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff received an induction, ongoing training, supervision and appraisals. Inspectors found staff had the skills and knowledge needed to support people.
“There were systems for supervising and appraising staff to ensure people were cared for by workers with the necessary skills and knowledge to support them.” from the report
Choice and involvement
People were supported to make decisions and have control over their lives. Relatives and people living at the home could give their views through meetings and discussions.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and were supported in the least restrictive way possible.” from the report
Health needs not always clearly recorded
needs fixingSome important needs, such as diabetes and swallowing difficulties, were recorded in less obvious parts of care plans rather than in separate plans. Inspectors recommended improving how these needs are documented.
“Important information about some people's requirements was not prominent within their care plans.” from the report
End of life care plans
needs fixingPeople receiving palliative care did not have separate plans explaining how their needs would be met, including pain control and who was involved. Staff also showed different understandings of people's end of life needs.
“For people identified as receiving palliative care, there was no separate care plan to outline how their needs would be met.” from the report
Gaps in monitoring records
needs fixingSome observation and fluid charts did not show checks or drinks being offered overnight. Inspectors could not tell whether care had not been given or whether staff had forgotten to record it.
“We could not be certain the person had not received appropriate care and support by night staff or if they had simply forgotten to complete the records.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure diabetes, swallowing difficulties and other important health needs are clearly recorded in each person's care plan?
- 02How are palliative and end of life care needs recorded, including pain control and the people involved in care?
- 03How do managers check that overnight observation and fluid charts are completed accurately?
- 04What action has been taken since the inspection to address the care-recording recommendations?
- 05How are staff trained to recognise and support people receiving palliative or end of life care?
This was an unannounced, planned inspection of the whole care home, including its premises and care, and it assessed all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 March 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 Farnham Common House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 November 2010.
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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of Buckinghamshire
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 £1,300 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.