CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Midtown Farm
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that staff understood safeguarding, risk assessments were suitable, recruitment checks were completed and medicines were securely managed with good records.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable induction, training and supervision. The building had been repaired and improved, and staff supported people with healthcare, nutrition and decisions made under the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed kind, respectful and affectionate relationships. Staff supported privacy, dignity, independence and communication.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans covered people's physical, emotional, psychological and social needs. Activities were planned for each person and staff understood their individual communication needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an experienced manager and improved quality monitoring. Records were well organised, and audits had led to improvements in care planning, the environment and staffing.
What inspectors found, May 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with earlier building problems put right.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 April 2018. The inspector met three of the four people living there, spoke with staff and other professionals, and checked care files, medicines, staffing, training, safety records and the building.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found suitable staffing, trained staff, well-managed medicines, detailed care plans and kind, respectful relationships.
The home had previously breached Regulation 15 because parts of the building were not suitable or properly maintained. Structural repairs, redecoration and replacement of damaged equipment had been completed, so inspectors found it was no longer in breach.
Inspectors also found that an action plan had been completed and that quality checks had improved. Some work was still developing, including tools to support healthy weight management and further improvements to staff deployment and record keeping.
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw genuine care, affection and respect between staff and the people living there.
“We judged that this was a caring home, with kind and considerate staff who displayed respect, empathy and affection for people in the home.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans gave staff detailed guidance based on each person's needs, strengths, preferences and risks.
“These records showed that this service had a person centred approach to care delivery.” from the report
Medicines and safety
Medicines were stored securely, recorded properly and reviewed with healthcare professionals when needed.
“Suitable monitoring of administration was in place with auditing, staff training and competence checks being undertaken.” from the report
Improved environment
Earlier problems caused by water ingress had been repaired. Damaged furniture and equipment had been removed or replaced.
“We judged that the service was no longer in breach.” from the report
Strong management checks
The home had developed regular audits and quality checks that supported improvements in care, staffing and the environment.
“We judged that this had come about because quality monitoring had improved.” from the report
Weight management still developing
minorSome people needed help with their weight. Staff were supporting healthy eating, but the manager was still planning further tools to support weight management.
“The registered manager was planning to introduce more tools to assist with weight management.” from the report
Previous quality checks missed building problems
minorThe report says the provider's quality monitoring had not previously identified some environmental problems. These problems had been addressed by this inspection.
“The registered provider had an in-depth quality monitoring system which in the past had not worked as effectively in identifying some problems related to the environment in this service.” from the report
- 01Have all Deprivation of Liberty authorisations been renewed, and how are they reviewed?
- 02What further tools or plans are now used to help people manage their weight?
- 03How do you check that earlier repairs and improvements to the building remain in good condition?
- 04How has staff deployment changed as people's needs and activities change?
- 05How does the new supervision system give staff regular feedback and support?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous Regulation 15 breach had been resolved and the other improvement actions had been completed. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 May 2018 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, April 2017
Midtown Farm was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, caring and responsive support, but problems with the environment, nutrition planning and quality checks.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 7 March 2017. The inspector met all four people living in the home, observed staff, spoke with relatives and professionals, and checked care files, medicines, staff records, policies, buildings, equipment, food and supplies.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found suitable staffing, medicines management, safeguarding arrangements and risk assessments. Staff were kind and patient, and people had detailed care plans and support to take part in activities.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall, as well as for Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found damp and mould, damaged furniture and fittings, and other repairs that had not been dealt with. Nutritional planning and quality checks also needed improvement. The home breached Regulation 15 about premises and equipment.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with patience, empathy and respect. Privacy, dignity and independence were supported.
“They showed empathy and were patient and understood the barriers each person might have.” from the report
Detailed care planning
Care plans covered people's health, communication, personal care, social needs and behaviour. Staff used them to guide day-to-day support.
“Each person had a health care plan and a person centred plan. These gave details of health and social needs and how best to meet them.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to go swimming, attend events, go for walks, eat out, shop and enjoy hobbies at home.
“During our inspection people went out in their own individual transport.” from the report
Staff support
Staff received induction, supervision, appraisal and training. Records showed they had opportunities to discuss difficult situations and improve their practice.
“Staff files we looked at contained detailed and up-to-date records of both supervision and appraisal.” from the report
Damp and unsafe fittings
seriousOne person was sleeping in a bedroom with damp and mould around both windows. Inspectors also found damaged furniture, broken fittings, loose window sills and loose radiator covers.
“We went into another bedroom and we noted that there was damp and mould around both windows.” from the report
Repairs and housekeeping
seriousSeveral repairs had not been completed, including a shower and bathroom wall. Inspectors also said housekeeping standards needed more attention.
“There was a broken table and a broken cupboard left in the house with the possibility of someone being hurt by these objects being pulled over.” from the report
Nutritional planning
needs fixingSome people had difficulty maintaining a healthy weight. Staff were helping, but formal nutritional planning was not yet in place.
“We noted that some people in the home had problems maintaining a healthy weight.” from the report
Records organisation
minorCare records were up to date, but some older information needed archiving and filing and storage could be more organised.
“The care files were up to date but some old information could be archived.” from the report
- 01What repairs have been completed to the bedroom with damp and mould, and how do you check that it remains safe?
- 02What has been repaired or replaced since the inspection, including the broken table, cupboard, kitchen cabinets, blinds, shower and bathroom wall?
- 03What formal nutritional plans are now in place for people who have difficulty maintaining a healthy weight?
- 04How do your current quality audits identify building, housekeeping and nutrition problems?
- 05How are records now archived and filed, and how quickly can staff find a person's current care information?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and the overall rating, with the previous inspection having taken place in October 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 April 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 Midtown Farm
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 December 2013.
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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Cumberland
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.
8 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
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.