CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Palace Farm
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found comprehensive risk assessments, safe medicines systems, suitable safeguarding training and checks on the building and equipment. Staff were also said to share changes in people's needs effectively.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective management systems, a positive culture and regular involvement of residents, relatives, staff and outside professionals in improving the service.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Palace Farm was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred support, but recruitment had affected some community activities.
This was a focused inspection on 7 June 2022. One inspector reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, policies and quality checks. They spoke with two residents, relatives, staff and health professionals.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely and staff understood people's individual needs. The home also had systems for learning from incidents and checking the quality of care.
The inspection followed concerns about risk management, person-centred care, staff induction and the environment. Inspectors found no evidence that people had been harmed because of these concerns. The overall Good rating also used the previous ratings for areas that were not inspected during this visit.
People had choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about their support. Staff focused on what people could do and helped them pursue their goals and interests.
“People were fully involved in discussions about how they received support.” from the report
Kind and individual care
Staff understood people's needs and communication methods, including body language, sounds, Makaton, pictures and symbols.
“People received kind and compassionate care from staff who understood and responded to their individual needs.” from the report
Strong risk management
The home had detailed risk assessments and worked with people to manage risks while supporting activities such as horse riding and beekeeping.
“There were comprehensive risk assessments in place covering all aspects of the service and support provided.” from the report
Recruitment affected community activities
needs fixingRecruitment was difficult. This had reduced some social activities in the community where people needed one-to-one support.
“There was an established core team of staff, however recruitment was challenging. This had impacted on people's social activities in the community where they required one to one support.” from the report
Community access after the pandemic
minorAn outside professional questioned whether restrictions during the pandemic had been overprotective. The home was supporting people to return to community activities, but some activities were no longer available or had become too expensive.
“The focus now was on supporting people to reintegrate back into the community.” from the report
Masks could cause anxiety
minorStaff did not always wear masks because masks triggered anxiety for some people. The report says individual risk assessments and extra safety measures were in place.
“However, staff did not always wear masks because this triggered anxiety for people.” from the report
- 01How many permanent and agency staff are currently available, and has recruitment improved since the inspection?
- 02What one-to-one community activities can each person access now, and how often?
- 03How are risk assessments made accessible to every member of staff, including new staff?
- 04What individual measures are used when masks cause anxiety, and how are infection risks monitored?
- 05How are residents and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and decisions about activities?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used for the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 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, February 2020
Palace Farm was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and strong activities, with gaps in medicines information and oral-health planning.
This was a planned inspection on 09 January 2020. One inspector spoke with two of the three residents, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and supported by a stable, trained staff team. People had detailed support plans and were helped to make choices, build independence and take part in activities such as gardening, animal care and bee keeping.
The home was clean, comfortable and well maintained. Staff supported people with healthy food, healthcare, communication and community activities. Inspectors noted that information about medicines was not kept with medicine records, and that oral-health guidance was not yet included in support plans.
Meaningful activities
People were supported to follow individual interests and take part in activities at home and in the local community.
“If a resident has an interest it is actively encouraged” from the report
Personalised support
Each person had a detailed support plan covering their daily needs, choices and preferences. Plans were regularly reviewed with people's involvement.
“The support plans were detailed, easy to read, regularly reviewed and updated.” from the report
Medicine information
needs fixingInformation about each medicine was stored in review files rather than with the medicine records. Staff knew where to find it, but it was not readily available while supporting people with medicines.
“Although staff knew where to find this information it was not readily available to staff while they were supporting people with their medicines.” from the report
Oral-health planning
needs fixingPeople had dental appointments and staff recorded dental advice, but support plans did not contain oral-health guidance. The provider said oral-health plans would be prepared.
“Support plans did not contain guidance on oral health, but the provider and staff told us oral health plans would be drawn up in the near future.” from the report
- 01Where is the information about each medicine now kept, and can staff access it immediately when supporting my relative?
- 02Have oral-health plans now been added to each person's support plan, and how are dental recommendations followed up?
- 03How will you make sure staffing remains consistent when staff work across the four homes?
- 04How would you support my relative to develop independence and take part in their particular interests?
- 05How would my relative and our family be involved in reviewing the support plan and raising concerns?
This planned inspection covered all five CQC questions, but inspectors spoke with two of the three residents because the third was away. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 February 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 Palace Farm
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 April 2016.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.