CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Litslade Farm
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, medicines, fire safety, infection control and accidents were managed through suitable systems.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had assessments and care plans suited to their needs. Staff received relevant training, and the home worked with health professionals to support people's health and nutrition.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. They used different forms of communication and offered choices to help people remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Support was highly personalised and helped people enjoy meaningful activities, family relationships and involvement in village life. The home adapted activities and communication methods to individual needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was consistently managed and had a clear focus on person-centred care. Audits, staff discussions and partnership working were used to monitor and improve care.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Litslade Farm was rated Good overall, with Outstanding personalised support and strong community involvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 4 and 5 February 2019. They observed care, looked around the home, checked care and staff records, and reviewed information about safety, incidents, training and management. They also spoke with staff, the manager and three relatives.
The home was caring, safe, effective and well-led. Inspectors found trained staff, suitable risk assessments, safe medicines systems, good healthcare support and respectful care. People were supported to communicate, make choices and stay as independent as possible.
The responsive rating was Outstanding. Inspectors found highly personalised activities and strong links with the local community. People took part in church, village activities, trips, hobbies and family visits. The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection in April 2016.
Personalised support
Staff supported people to follow their interests, build independence and enjoy activities that mattered to them. Inspectors found this was a particularly strong part of the service.
“Services were tailored to meet the needs of individuals and delivered to ensure flexibility, choice and continuity of care.” from the report
Community involvement
People were supported to take part in church, local coffee mornings and village activities. They also helped deliver the village newsletter.
“This provided them with the opportunity to contribute to village life in a meaningful way by offering this service and to forge relationships with people in the neighbourhood.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff speaking calmly and respectfully. People appeared comfortable and enjoyed spending time with staff.
“We observed people were well treated by staff. Staff spoke with people in a calm and respectful way.” from the report
Good safety systems
The home had systems for safeguarding, risk management, medicines, infection control and learning from incidents. Inspectors said legal requirements were met.
“People were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Legal requirements were met.” from the report
Staff training and teamwork
Staff had induction, ongoing and specialist training. Medicine administration was checked through competency tests and observations.
“Training in medicine administration was followed up by competency tests and observations.” from the report
Family feedback was not passed on
minorA questionnaire had been sent to families and professionals, but its results had not been given to the manager. The manager said this would be discussed with the provider.
“However, the results for the service were not relayed to the registered manager.” from the report
Gaps in two employment histories
minorRecords for two staff members had gaps in their employment histories. The manager followed this up and understood why complete information was important.
“We found records for two staff members showed gaps in their employment histories, this was followed up by the registered manager.” from the report
End of life care plans were still being developed
minorOne person already had relevant professional support arranged, but full end of life care plans for people were due to be put in place after further guidance from the provider.
“People in the service each had a funeral plan; when clear guidance had been issued by the provider, end of life care plans would be in place too.” from the report
- 01How do you understand and respond to each person's communication, including signs, gestures, facial expressions or behaviour?
- 02What current risk assessments and specialist guidance are in place for behaviour that may put the person or others at risk?
- 03How will you support my relative to take part in family visits, community activities and hobbies that matter to them?
- 04How are end of life wishes and care plans recorded and kept up to date?
- 05How do you use feedback from families and professionals to improve the home?
This was an unannounced scheduled inspection covering all five questions and reviewing the overall quality and safety of the home; the previous inspection in April 2016 was also rated Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 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 Litslade Farm
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- April 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 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
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.