CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Finn Farm Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, staff understood safeguarding, medicines records were complete and accurate, and staff administering medicines were trained and assessed as competent.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and reviewed. Staff supported healthy eating, exercise and healthcare, and worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They and their relatives were involved in care planning, and people were supported to make choices and develop independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was designed around people's needs, preferences and relationships. People took part in activities they enjoyed and could use easy-read information and pictures to help them understand information and decisions.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was described as approachable and open to suggestions. Audits, action plans and partnership working were used to monitor and improve the service.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Finn Farm Lodge is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a new specialist care plan still being put into practice.
This was an unannounced planned inspection by one inspector on 27 November 2019. The inspector spoke with people using the home, staff, a visiting health professional and relatives. They also reviewed care records, medicines records and management records.
The home provided personal care for three people with a learning disability and could support up to six people. Inspectors found that people felt safe, staff were kind and trained, medicines were managed safely, and people's choices, privacy and independence were respected.
People were supported with healthy eating, exercise, healthcare appointments, activities and relationships. Staff used communication aids such as easy-read information and pictures. The manager and staff worked with health professionals and used audits to identify and address shortfalls.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was unchanged from the previous Good rating, published on 17 May 2017.
People felt safe
People and their relatives said they felt safe. Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to respond to concerns.
“People and their loved ones told us they felt safe at the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff understood people well, listened to their concerns and supported their privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were treated with kindness and care by a staff team who new them well.” from the report
Personalised support
People were involved in their care and could choose activities and staff support that suited their interests and relationships.
“People's support was designed around their needs and with them and their relatives.” from the report
Health and independence
Staff supported people with healthy eating, exercise, healthcare appointments and daily tasks such as cooking, laundry and recycling.
“People were encouraged and supported to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Open management
The manager and staff had a shared focus on helping people reach their potential. Audits and action plans were used to address shortfalls.
“The provider's quality team completed regular audits.” from the report
Manager registration
minorThere was no manager registered with CQC when inspectors visited. The manager had started the application process, so families may want to check its progress.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
New specialist care plan
minorA new care plan about Prader-Willi syndrome had been designed after recent training, but staff were still working with people to put it into practice.
“Following recent training about PWS, a new care plan had been designed.” from the report
- 01What progress has been made with the manager's application to become registered with CQC?
- 02How is the new Prader-Willi syndrome care plan being completed and used in daily support?
- 03How would you support my relative's food, exercise and healthy-weight needs?
- 04How would my relative be involved in choosing activities, staff support and decisions about their care?
- 05How would the home meet my relative's needs alongside the people already living there?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the previous Good ratings in all five areas remained unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 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, May 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some limits around wheelchair access and management oversight.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 11 April 2017. They spoke with all five people living at the home, staff, a relative and social care professionals. They observed care, checked the building and reviewed care plans, medicines, staff records, accidents, complaints and quality checks.
The home supported up to six people with Prader Willi Syndrome. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable risk assessments and improved fire safety checks. Staff understood people's health needs, communication styles and behaviour support plans. People were treated kindly and supported to make choices, build independence and take part in activities.
The home had been rated inadequate in several areas at the previous inspection in April 2016. The report says action had been taken to address those shortfalls, including staff recruitment checks, induction, medicines, complaints and quality monitoring. All five areas were rated Good at this inspection.
Improved safety systems
Recruitment checks, medicines processes and fire safety arrangements had improved since the previous inspection. Inspectors found staff knew how to protect people from harm.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff recruitment ensured all appropriate checks on new staff were made.” from the report
Specialist support
Staff had guidance and training to support people with Prader Willi Syndrome, health needs, anxiety and behaviour that could challenge others.
“Specialised training was also available in regard to Prader Willi and positive behaviour support of people for when they became anxious and their behaviour could be affected.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were comfortable with staff and were supported with patience, privacy and dignity. They were encouraged to make choices and build independence.
“Staff were kind and patient, they respected people's privacy and treated them with respect.” from the report
Personalised activities and care
Care plans reflected people's individual needs, communication styles, goals and preferences. People took part in activities and outings that suited them.
“Each person's everyday care and support was designed to take account of the impact of Prader Willi Syndrome on their day to day care and support.” from the report
Improved leadership
Staff felt better supported and communication had improved. Audits and action plans gave the home a clearer way to identify and address problems.
“Improvements to the robustness of audits and checks enabled better oversight of service quality.” from the report
Wheelchair access
needs fixingThe home was not accessible for people who needed to use a wheelchair. This should be checked against the needs of the person considering the service.
“Some bedrooms were located downstairs but the service was not accessible for people who needed to use a wheelchair.” from the report
Staffing had been unsettled
minorThere had been staff turnover and absence since the previous inspection. Inspectors said staffing was sufficient and the situation appeared to be improving, but this remains worth asking about.
“There had been continued unsettled staffing since the previous inspection; this looked to be reducing” from the report
Senior oversight was not yet clear
minorA recent senior management restructure meant it was not clear how much oversight there would be of quality and action plans in future.
“There had been a recent restructure of senior management within the organisation; it was as yet unclear how much oversight and involvement senior management would now have” from the report
Some goals needed updating
needs fixingSome people's care goals had already been met for the review year, but new goals still needed to be recorded.
“For some people these had already been met for the review year and new ones needed to be recorded.” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff currently work here, and has the staffing team remained settled since the inspection?
- 02How would you support someone who uses a wheelchair, given the report's finding that the home was not wheelchair accessible?
- 03How are Prader Willi Syndrome, food access, behaviour and communication needs assessed and kept up to date?
- 04How are care goals reviewed when a person has met their previous goals?
- 05Who now checks quality and action plans after the senior management restructure mentioned in the report?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with all five ratings given as Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 May 2017 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 Finn Farm Lodge
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 February 2012.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.