CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Farmhouse
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found staff training was not always up to date and rated effectiveness Requires Improvement.
This was a planned inspection on 26 February 2020. One inspector spoke with five people, five staff members and two relatives. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, training information and other service records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, caring, responsive and well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found kind staff, personalised support, safe medicines processes, good community activities and effective links with health professionals.
Effective was rated Requires Improvement. Not all staff had completed required refresher training. Inspectors also found some missed water safety checks, medicines without opening dates and communal sofas needing replacement. The home took immediate action on some of these issues.
Kind and knowledgeable staff
Staff were caring and understood people's individual needs, preferences and ways of communicating.
“Staff were kind and caring in their approach and people were relaxed and happy in their company.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans covered people's routines, choices, communication and goals for greater independence.
“People received personalised care based on their individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Community activities
People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed, with plans adapted to their needs.
“People were supported to access activities in the local community.” from the report
Healthcare support
Staff worked with health professionals and helped people access health checks, dental care and preventative healthcare.
“Staff ensured people had access to input from a range of health professionals according to their needs.” from the report
Staff training gaps
seriousSome staff had not completed required refresher training. This included safeguarding, fire safety, mental capacity and infection control.
“Lack of refresher training could put people at risk, as staff might not be up to date with current best practice.” from the report
Medicine opening dates
needs fixingSome liquid medicines did not have the date of opening written on them. Inspectors said there was no impact because the medicines had been issued recently, and action was taken.
“We found some liquid medicines were not labelled with the date of opening, to reduce the risk of medicines being administered that were past their safe use by date.” from the report
Communal sofas
minorSome communal sofas needed replacing and soiled easily. This had already been raised, but no replacement date had been secured.
“However, some of the sofas in the communal areas were in need of replacement and soiled easily.” from the report
- 01Are all staff now up to date with safeguarding, fire safety, mental capacity and infection control training?
- 02How are you checking that regular actions to prevent legionella contamination are completed?
- 03How do you label liquid medicines with their opening dates and check that this is done consistently?
- 04Have the communal sofas been replaced, and if not, when will this happen?
- 05How will my relative be involved in care reviews, activities and decisions about their support?
This inspection covered all five CQC questions and reviewed the care provided and the premises; it was a planned inspection based on the previous Good rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 March 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.
What inspectors found, October 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some medicines recording errors and limited office space to address.
The announced inspection took place on 29 September 2017. Inspectors spoke with five people living in the home, five care staff, managers and three relatives. They observed care, checked three care records and reviewed staffing, training and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable training and good support with health, food, communication and decision-making.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff supported independence, privacy, hobbies and contact with relatives. Complaints had been investigated and resolved, and people were involved in decisions about their home.
The home had also been rated Good at the previous inspection in October 2014. Inspectors found it remained Good, although some medicines had not been dispensed or recorded correctly and staff sometimes had to complete records in shared living areas.
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to provide prompt individual support. Recruitment checks, including criminal record checks and references, had been completed before staff were appointed.
“There were enough care staff on duty to promptly provide people with the care they needed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff took time to speak with people, respected their privacy and helped them choose how they wanted their care provided.
“We saw that people were being treated in a kind and respectful way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included personal goals, and people were supported with hobbies, community activities, independence and their individual communication needs.
“Each person had a written care plan that described the care they needed.” from the report
Good involvement and leadership
People and relatives were involved in decisions and could suggest improvements. Staff had handovers, meetings and ways to raise concerns.
“Care staff were being provided with the leadership they needed to develop good team working practices.” from the report
Medicines recording
needs fixingA small number of medicines had not been dispensed correctly or recorded properly in the year before the inspection. Inspectors said no one was directly harmed, and the home had taken action to reduce the chance of this happening again.
“Records showed that in the 12 months preceding our inspection visit there had been a small number of occasions when a medicine had not been dispensed correctly or had not been recorded in the right way.” from the report
Limited office space
minorThe office was too small for more than one staff member, so staff completed administrative work in the kitchen and lounge. The problem had been identified, but there was no timescale for fixing it at the inspection.
“Although no timescale had been adopted to resolve the problem we were told that a clear development plan to rectify the matter would be prepared as a matter of priority.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to prevent medicines being dispensed or recorded incorrectly?
- 02How do you check that medicines records are complete and accurate now?
- 03Has the office space been improved so staff no longer need to complete records in the kitchen or lounge?
- 04How will staff learn and use my relative's personal communication methods?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in care planning and decisions?
This was an announced inspection covering all five CQC questions; inspectors observed care, reviewed three care records and spoke with five people, staff, managers and three relatives. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 October 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 The Farmhouse
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.