CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Higher Cockham Farm
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Staffing, recruitment, risk assessments, infection control, building maintenance and medicines management were all found to be suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received appropriate assessments, training and healthcare support. Inspectors noted that specific oral healthcare plans were not yet in place, and the manager said these would be completed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions about their care and were supported to make choices and develop independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and personalised. People were supported with activities, relationships, communication and complaints, although end of life wishes had not yet been recorded.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor quality and make improvements. People, relatives, staff and visiting professionals were invited to give their views.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with oral care plans still needed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 14 October 2019. One inspector spoke with four people, four staff members and the registered manager. They reviewed care, medicine and recruitment records, looked around the home and observed staff supporting people.
The home provides accommodation and nursing care for up to six people with mental ill health. Four people were living there at the time. Inspectors found people felt safe and comfortable, medicines were managed safely, staffing was sufficient and the building was maintained.
Inspectors found staff were kind, respectful and responsive to people's individual needs. People helped shape their care plans and were supported with activities, healthcare and daily choices. The home was rated Good in all five areas and overall, the same as at the previous inspection published in May 2017.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt comfortable and safe. Staff understood how to report abuse and incidents, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
“People told us they felt comfortable and safe living in the home.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and provided warm, friendly and personalised support. People were treated with dignity and could have privacy in their rooms.
“Staff responded to people in a warm, kind, caring and friendly manner.” from the report
Personalised care planning
Care plans reflected people's needs, interests and preferences. People were involved in reviewing their plans and staff updated them when needs changed.
“The care plans were detailed and showed people's preferences and interests had been taken into consideration.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People had weekly activity plans and individual time with their key worker. Staff supported people to take part in activities and maintain relationships.
“People participated in a range of activities both within the home and the wider community.” from the report
Active management
The manager used audits, action plans, meetings and feedback to monitor the service and make improvements.
“The registered manager had established systems to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Oral healthcare plans
needs fixingInspectors found there were no specific oral healthcare plans at the time of the visit. The manager said plans would be completed to reduce risks linked to poor mouth care.
“However, we noted there were no specific oral healthcare plans.” from the report
End of life wishes
minorNo one was receiving end of life care during the inspection. The manager agreed to explore and record people's wishes if appropriate.
“The registered manager agreed to explore, and record people's end of life wishes, as appropriate.” from the report
- 01Have specific oral healthcare plans now been completed for every person, and how are they reviewed?
- 02How will you discuss and record a person's end of life wishes?
- 03How many staff are usually on duty for the number and needs of people living here?
- 04How are people involved in reviewing their care plans and weekly activity plans?
- 05How do your audits and action plans lead to improvements in people's care?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 November 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 records still needing improvement.
Inspectors visited on 20 and 21 April 2017. The first day was unannounced. They observed care, spoke with five people, visitors and staff, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were happy with the care. Inspectors saw staff treating people warmly, respectfully and with dignity.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in May 2016. Medicines were being managed safely, and people were more involved in their care planning. Inspectors still identified some areas to improve, including personal emergency evacuation plans and parts of the mental capacity records.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Staff administering medicines had completed training and competency checks.
“We found appropriate arrangements were in place in relation to the safe storage, receipt, administration and disposal of medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff listening to people and supporting them in a warm, friendly and dignified way.
“We saw that staff interacted well with people in a warm and friendly manner and observed that people were comfortable in the presence of all the staff who were supporting them.” from the report
Personalised support
People were involved in care planning and worked with staff on individual goals, activities and recovery plans.
“All people spoken with were familiar with their care plan and confirmed they had discussed their needs and aspirations.” from the report
Promoting independence
People were encouraged to make choices, develop independence skills and take part in activities inside and outside the home.
“Staff were committed to helping people to build their independence skills and to exercise as much control over their own lives as possible.” from the report
Improved since the last inspection
The provider had acted on the previous concerns about medicines and involvement in care planning. Inspectors found the relevant regulations were now being met.
“During this inspection, we found improvements had been made in order to meet the regulations.” from the report
Emergency evacuation plans
needs fixingIndividual personal emergency evacuation plans had not been completed. These plans should set out each person's needs during an emergency evacuation.
“However, we noted individual personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) had not been carried out.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingThe records did not clearly show how people's capacity had been assessed before they moved in. The manager said the documentation would be improved.
“It was therefore unclear how people's capacity was assessed and determined.” from the report
Accident and incident analysis
needs fixingAccidents and incidents were recorded, but the information had not been formally analysed to identify patterns or trends. The manager said future records would be analysed.
“Whilst all accidents and incidents were recorded on an overall log, a formal analysis of the data had not been carried out in order to identify any patterns or trends.” from the report
- 01Have personal emergency evacuation plans now been completed for every person, and when are they reviewed?
- 02How do you assess and record a person's mental capacity before admission and when their needs change?
- 03How do you analyse accidents and incidents to identify repeated problems or trends?
- 04How are people involved in reviewing their care plans and recovery goals?
- 05How do you check that medicines remain safely stored, administered and recorded?
This was an inspection of the overall service and covered all five CQC questions, with ratings given for each area. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 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 Higher Cockham Farm
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 November 2011.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.