CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Farm House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Staff were trained in safeguarding and knew how to report concerns. Risks were assessed, there were enough staff, and medicines were administered safely.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Staff had suitable training and worked with health professionals, but repairs and refurbishment were outstanding. There had also been gaps in staff supervision.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and provided care with kindness and respect. People were supported with their communication, dignity, choices and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reviewed when needs changed. Activities reflected people's abilities, preferences and wellbeing, and the complaints process was accessible.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The new manager was described as approachable and proactive. Audits, improvement plans and feedback systems were in place, although the manager was still completing the registration process.
What inspectors found, October 2018
The Farm House was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the home needed to improve its building and staff supervision.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 September 2018. One inspector reviewed care records for four people, medicines and other service records, observed care in communal areas, and spoke with staff, managers, families and visiting professionals.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, caring, responsive and well-led were all rated Good. Staff knew people well, treated them with respect, supported their choices and provided activities suited to their needs. There were enough staff, medicines were administered safely, and risks were assessed and managed.
Effective was rated Requires Improvement because repairs and refurbishment were still needed. These included a leaking roof, faulty underfloor heating, a bathroom needing work and the absence of a door hold-open device. There had also been gaps in formal staff supervision, although the new manager had started actions to address this.
Enough familiar staff
The home had enough staff to meet people's needs safely. It rarely used agency staff and tried to use workers who knew the people living there.
“There were enough staff on duty at all times to meet people's diverse, individual needs safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff understood people’s needs, preferences and ways of communicating. Inspectors saw caring, friendly and respectful interactions.
“People were treated with respect and their privacy and dignity was promoted.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans focused on what people could do and how staff could support independence and safety. Plans were updated when people's needs changed.
“People's care plans focused on what they could do and how staff could help them to maintain their independence and protect their safety wherever possible.” from the report
Activities matched to people
People had both planned and flexible activities. These reflected their abilities, preferences, choices, moods and wellbeing.
“The service continued to provide people with an activities programme which responded to their abilities, preferences, choices, moods and well-being.” from the report
Outstanding building repairs
needs fixingSeveral parts of the building needed repair or refurbishment. These included a roof leak, failed underfloor heating, a bathroom and a door hold-open device.
“There were areas of the home requiring repair and refurbishment.” from the report
Gaps in staff supervision
needs fixingSome staff had not received formal supervision as regularly as required. The new manager had introduced a schedule and intended to monitor it.
“There had been gaps in the supervision frequency for some staff but the new manager had implemented a dated matrix with scheduled dates for all staff.” from the report
Some training records overdue
minorMedicines administrators had completed classroom medicines training, but some e-learning records showed as overdue. The manager had introduced a system for keeping certificates.
“all staff who were medicines administrators were up to date with their class room based medicines training but some e-learning was showing as overdue.” from the report
- 01Have the conservatory roof leak and faulty underfloor heating now been repaired?
- 02Has the downstairs bathroom been refurbished and adjusted so people can use it comfortably and independently?
- 03Has a door hold-open device been installed for the person who did not want to be shut off from activities?
- 04How do you now make sure every member of staff receives formal supervision at the required frequency?
- 05Are all medicines-related e-learning records now complete and up to date?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, based on records for four people, observations in communal areas and feedback from staff, families and professionals. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 October 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.
Every inspection of The Farm House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 December 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
78 live-in carers within about an hour of Wokingham
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 £1,260 a week. 71 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.