CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Offmore Farm Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff understood how to manage known risks. Medicines, staffing, recruitment and infection control were found to be safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care was planned around people's needs and staff had suitable training. People were supported with food, healthcare appointments and decisions under the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so no rating was given in this report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so no rating was given in this report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was described as visible and approachable. Inspectors found effective checks on care records, medicines, staff practice and the quality of the service.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-led care, with clear improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 27 June 2022. One inspector spoke with five people and eight staff, observed care, and reviewed care, medicines, training, recruitment, complaints and quality records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found that people felt safe, staff understood their needs, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were sufficient, and infection control arrangements were suitable.
The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement in 2019, with breaches relating to risk management, the Mental Capacity Act and quality checks. Inspectors found enough improvement had been made and said the home was no longer in breach of those regulations.
This inspection did not cover Caring or Responsive. The overall rating changed to Good using the new findings and the previous ratings for areas not inspected.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and staff were attentive to their needs. Staff knew about safeguarding and how to respond to possible abuse.
“People felt safe and well supported by the staff.” from the report
Safer risk management
Staff understood people's known risks and how to manage them. Care needs were reviewed monthly or sooner when needed.
“At this inspection staff understood people's risks and how to manage these.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Inspectors found clear guidance for covert medicines, safe fridge temperatures and medicines given as prescribed.
“People received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Good food and healthcare support
People had choices of food and drinks, and staff supported them with dietary needs and healthcare appointments.
“We saw staff gave people visual offerings of different food options so people could make an informed choice.” from the report
Improved management checks
The provider had introduced stronger checks and improved how it reported incidents and monitored care.
“At this inspection the provider had robust checks were in place and improvements had been made.” from the report
Some areas were not inspected
minorThe inspection only checked Safe, Effective and Well-led. Caring and Responsive were not examined during this visit, so families have less current information about those areas.
“This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Safe, Effective and Well-led which contain those requirements.” from the report
- 01How do you currently involve residents and relatives in care decisions and reviews?
- 02What is the current rating or latest evidence for Caring and Responsive, which were not inspected in this visit?
- 03How do you check that covert medicines are given in line with the person's authorised care plan?
- 04How do you make sure staff continue to follow texture-modified diet guidance?
- 05Have the planned electronic care records and new dementia care training been introduced?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit and the overall rating used previous ratings for areas not covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 July 2022 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, October 2019
Offmore Farm Residential Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring and responsive support but important safety, consent and management shortfalls.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 August 2019. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals, and checked care records, medicines records, audits and other management records.
The overall rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive remained Good.
Inspectors found that people were generally treated with kindness, had their choices respected and were supported with activities, food and healthcare. However, medicines were not always handled safely, risk information was unclear, and staff did not consistently follow professional advice.
The home had not always followed the law when checking consent and best interests. Its checks on quality and safety were not effective. The provider said improvements had started and that it would provide an action plan, with CQC and the local authority monitoring progress.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity, respecting privacy and supporting independence.
“We saw all staff supported people in a dignified way, and respected and promoted their privacy.” from the report
Personalised activities
Staff understood people's interests and supported them to take part in activities suited to their history and preferences, including quieter options.
“Staff had taken time to understand people's wishes and had supported people with meeting these.” from the report
Food and healthcare support
People had choices of meals and enjoyed the dining experience. Staff helped people access doctors, appointments and other healthcare support.
“People told us they were given a choice of meals to eat during the day and had access to fresh fruit and snacks if they wanted.” from the report
Consent and best interests
seriousCapacity assessments and best-interests records were not always completed correctly. Deprivation of liberty applications were made without all the supporting records and involvement being considered first.
“Management staff had not always completed capacity assessments for people where they felt these were required.” from the report
Staff training checks
needs fixingStaff did not have specific training for texture-modified diets. The provider had also not checked whether staff understood and could apply their recent training.
“Staff were not aware of best practice nor had they received specific training to support people who required a texture modified diets.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousThe provider did not have reliable systems to monitor safety, risks, medicines, consent or staff competence. This contributed to inconsistent care.
“The provider did not have established and systems and processes in place that operated effectively to enable them to assess, monitor and improve the quality and the safety of the service.” from the report
Unexplained bruising
needs fixingStaff recorded unexplained bruises but did not always escalate them promptly to management. Management later reviewed these records and investigated the bruises.
“Staff were recording unexplained bruising but had not escalated these concerns at the time they were found.” from the report
- 01How are you now ensuring covert medicines are given safely and with pharmacy advice?
- 02How do you check that medicines remain safe when the medicines fridge temperature is outside the safe range?
- 03How are capacity assessments, best-interests decisions and deprivation of liberty applications now recorded and reviewed?
- 04What training and competency checks do staff have for texture-modified diets and other healthcare professional advice?
- 05What independent or internal checks now monitor risks, medicines, care records and the quality of care?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, with the previous Good ratings for Caring and Responsive retained and Safe, Effective and Well-led reassessed as Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 October 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 Offmore Farm Residential Home
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Offmore Farm Residential Home →
- October 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Offmore Farm Residential Home →
- February 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 November 2010.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Worcestershire
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. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.