CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Farriess Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but safety, building repairs and management oversight still needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 January 2020. Inspectors spoke with people who used the service, visitors and staff. They observed care and checked care, medicine, staffing and quality records.
The home was caring and responsive. People said staff were kind, knew them well and respected their choices. People received their medicines, food and healthcare support, and activities were available.
Inspectors found some safety and building problems. Staff did not always follow one person's smoking risk assessment. Some windows could not be opened, and other areas needed repair. The home also had no registered manager and its quality checks had missed some problems.
The overall rating is Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good. The home had improved since the previous inspection and was no longer in breach of regulations, but this was its third consecutive Requires Improvement rating.
Kind and respectful staff
People and visitors spoke positively about the staff. Inspectors saw people treated with patience, dignity and respect.
“People were supported by staff who knew them well and understood their preferred routines and preferences.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Medicines were stored securely and given when needed. Staff had training and their practice was checked.
“Medicines were safely managed, stored securely and given when people needed them.” from the report
Enough staff available
People said staff were available when needed, and inspectors saw requests for help were answered promptly.
“There were sufficient staff on duty throughout the day and people's requests for assistance were responded to promptly.” from the report
Personalised activities and support
People were offered activities, faith support and help to maintain relationships. Care plans included individual preferences and routines.
“People's care plans contained individualised information.” from the report
Smoking risk was not always followed
seriousOne person was left smoking alone even though their risk assessment said staff supervision was needed. The manager said staff would be reminded.
“Staff did not always follow people's risk assessments to ensure their safety was maintained.” from the report
Repairs and fresh air
needs fixingSome windows could not be opened, including windows in communal areas and two bedrooms. Flooring, walls and external building work also needed repair.
“This meant some people didn't have access to fresh air in their bedrooms should they want it.” from the report
Smoke drifting into other areas
needs fixingCigarette smoke escaped from the designated smoke room into the corridor. CQC recommended reviewing good practice to prevent this.
“We recommend the provider look at the good practice measures to prevent smoke drifting into smoke free areas.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingThe provider had action plans and carried out audits, but its systems had not found all the repairs and other improvements needed.
“The provider's quality assurance systems had not been effective in identifying all areas that required improvement.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere had been no registered manager since July 2019. An acting manager was running the home while the provider continued recruiting.
“There has been no registered manager in post since July 2019.” from the report
- 01What repairs to the windows, laundry room flooring and walls have now been completed, and are all bedroom and communal windows openable?
- 02How do you make sure staff follow the smoking supervision risk assessment every time?
- 03What changes have you made to stop cigarette smoke drifting from the smoke room into the corridor?
- 04Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and what is the progress in recruiting a registered manager?
- 05How are each person's oral health needs recorded and checked now?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided; it followed the previous Requires Improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 March 2020 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 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but uncovered uncovered heating risks and weak checks by the provider.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 18 December 2018. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and a health professional. They reviewed care records, staff files and the home's checks on quality and safety.
People generally felt safe and spoke positively about staff. Medicines were managed safely, staffing levels met people's needs, and care was described as kind, personal and responsive. People received suitable food and support with their health needs.
The home was not consistently safe or well-led. Some radiators and heaters were uncovered, creating a risk of burns. The provider's checks had not found this problem, and some improvements from the previous inspection had not been completed.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement, for the second time. Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement.
Kind relationships
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff spending time with people, offering choices and supporting their dignity.
“Throughout the inspection we observed many positive and caring interactions between people in residence and staff” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and administered through established systems. Records showed medicines had been signed for when given.
“We found (MARs) were signed when all medicines were administered.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences, routines, communication needs and details about their lives before moving into the home.
“Information recorded, supported a person-centred approach to care.” from the report
Health and food support
Staff worked with health professionals and recognised people's dietary needs, including risks of malnutrition, dehydration and choking.
“The chef had a clear understanding of people's dietary needs with the appropriate meals being provided.” from the report
Uncovered heaters
seriousSome radiators and other heating devices were not covered. People could have come into contact with hot surfaces and burned themselves.
“People were at risk as radiators and heaters were not covered, placing people at risk of coming into contact with hot surfaces.” from the report
Checks did not find risks
needs fixingThe home's audits and environmental risk assessment failed to identify the uncovered heaters. This was part of a wider problem with provider oversight.
“However, we found shortfalls were not always identified.” from the report
Dementia training
needs fixingOnly a small number of staff had received dementia awareness training, and staff were not confident about supporting people living with dementia.
“Staff we spoke with were not confident in how they should support or care for people living with dementia.” from the report
Information was not easy to find
minorComplaints, advocacy and safeguarding information was kept in a less obvious area. Information for people visiting the home was also limited for those without internet access.
“Information about advocacy services the complaints process and guidance including contact details about safeguarding were displayed in the conservatory” from the report
One missed preference
needs fixingOne person wanted to go for a walk but staff did not support this because it was raining. Alternative activities were offered, but the person's stated wish remained unmet.
“Staff did not say as to why a walk in the rain was inappropriate.” from the report
- 01Have all radiators and heaters now been covered, including those in the stables, extension, bathrooms, toilets and smoking room?
- 02How do you now check the home for environmental risks, and how do you make sure actions from audits are completed?
- 03What dementia awareness training have staff completed since this inspection?
- 04How do you make sure each person's wishes, such as going out for a walk, are supported when possible?
- 05How do you share survey results, planned improvements and complaints information with residents and relatives?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with the inspection visit on 18 December 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 February 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 Farriess Court
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- March 2020Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 November 2016.
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
78 live-in carers within about an hour of Derby
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. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
“Rachel is a quietly spoken, extremely caring person and looked after Val very well.”
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.