CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Miller Farm
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place. This included safe use of protective equipment, testing, cleaning, social distancing and outbreak arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control measures protected people during the coronavirus outbreak.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 16 December 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control because of the coronavirus response.
Inspectors were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, supported testing, followed shielding and social distancing rules, and had plans for managing outbreaks. They also found good supplies of protective equipment and staff trained in infection control.
The home helped people keep in touch with family and continue important routines where possible. Some people found face masks made communication harder, so staff used tools such as white boards and Makaton signs. Visits had recently been suspended at the time of the inspection.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or a full rating for all five areas of care.
Infection control
The home had clear arrangements to reduce the spread of infection. Staff used protective equipment and had been trained in infection prevention.
“There were clear measures in place to manage and reduce the spread of infection.” from the report
Support with communication
Staff recognised that face masks could make communication harder and used other ways to help people understand and express themselves.
“Some people found communication more difficult when staff wore face masks, however tools such as a white board and using Makaton signs helped.” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to phone or video call their families. When visits were allowed, a dedicated room was cleaned between visits.
“People had been supported to keep in touch with their families.” from the report
Maintaining routines
Staff supported people to continue valued activities where possible, including local voluntary work and visits to a shop. They created an alternative activity when one person had to isolate.
“Staff created a daily 'surprise box'.” from the report
Support for staff
Staff received regular coronavirus testing and support if they had to isolate or developed symptoms.
“Staff were regularly tested for Covid-19 and received full pay if they had to isolate or displayed symptoms.” from the report
Communication when wearing masks
minorSome people found it harder to communicate when staff wore face masks. The provider was sourcing protective equipment that would better meet people's communication and safety needs.
“Some people found communication more difficult when staff wore face masks” from the report
- 01What protective equipment is now available for people who find standard face masks difficult for communication?
- 02How are people supported to communicate when staff are wearing face coverings?
- 03Are visits currently allowed, and what room and cleaning arrangements are used?
- 04How are people supported to keep important routines and community activities going?
- 05How often are staff and residents tested for Covid-19, and what happens if someone needs to isolate?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 January 2021 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, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some records and communication needing improvement.
This was a planned inspection over three days. One inspector reviewed care records, staff files, medicine records, incident records, complaints and quality checks. They also spoke with people, staff and other people involved in the service.
The home supported 10 people with learning disabilities and autism. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated kindly and supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities. Medicines were managed safely and staff had suitable training and supervision.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating and the same rating for each area as at the previous inspection, published on 30 June 2017.
Personal choice and independence
People were supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible. Care plans recorded what people could do for themselves and the support they needed.
“People's independence was central to the aims and ethos of the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw a warm atmosphere and staff who knew people well. People were supported discreetly and with dignity.
“We observed people were relaxed and comfortable in the presence of staff.” from the report
Communication support
The home used picture boards, signs, Makaton, large print and easy-read information to help people understand and express themselves.
“Information was available in large print, easy read, Makaton and pictorial formats.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People chose how to spend their time and were supported to take part in social activities, community events and relationships.
“People chose how they wished to spend their time.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff received induction, regular training and supervision. Inspectors found that training included people's specific needs.
“Staff received a variety of regular training and training specific to people's needs to ensure they were skilled in their role.” from the report
Risk and care records needed updating
needs fixingInspectors found that reviews of risk assessments did not always capture small changes. Older information also remained in some care files, making current information harder to find.
“We highlighted to the registered manager where reviews and updates of risk assessments had not always identified small changes.” from the report
Some communication gaps
needs fixingInspectors highlighted that important information needed to be acknowledged promptly. They also received feedback that communication was weaker when managers were away.
“We also received feedback that communication could be improved in the absence of managers.” from the report
Infection control checks could be broader
minorThe home was clean and staff followed infection control procedures. However, inspectors said audits should include more detail about maintenance and equipment.
“We highlighted to the registered manager where infection control audits would benefit from wider details to ensure areas such as maintenance and equipment were checked.” from the report
Larger than current guidance
minorThe home was registered for up to 10 people and all 10 places were in use. Inspectors noted that this was larger than current best practice guidance, although they said the building and setting reduced the impact.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure risk assessments are reviewed whenever a person's needs or circumstances change?
- 02How do you remove old information from care files so staff can quickly find the current guidance?
- 03How is important information shared and checked when managers are absent?
- 04What further checks are now included in infection control audits for maintenance and equipment?
- 05How does the home's size affect people's experience, privacy, choice and access to staff?
This was a planned inspection of the whole care home, including accommodation and personal care, and all five CQC questions were rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 January 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.
Every inspection of Miller Farm
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of North Somerset
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 £1,050 to £1,320 a week. 19 can care for a couple. 12 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.