CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Old Farm House Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safe recruitment, risk assessments, safety checks and medicine systems. Some as-needed medicine guidance was incomplete, and the small staff pool could be vulnerable when people were absent.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisals. People received suitable support with food, hydration, health appointments and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and compassionate. People’s privacy, dignity, choices, independence, personal rooms and religious beliefs were supported.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. Activities were available, people could raise concerns, and end-of-life wishes were recorded where known.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Managers were approachable and staff understood their roles. However, reporting responsibilities during the manager’s absence, records of management visits and tracking of audit actions needed improvement.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, effective care, but the home needed to improve its management and oversight.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 9 and 10 October 2018. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staff records, safety checks, complaints and quality audits.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. People said they felt safe and happy. Staff knew people well, treated them kindly, supported their choices and helped with health needs, food, activities and personal routines.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being well-led. During the manager's absence, two serious falls were not reported to CQC as required. The home also needed better records of management visits and a clearer system for tracking and completing improvements.
This was the first rating inspection since the service registered under a new provider in October 2017. The overall Good rating means the inspectors found the care was generally good, but some management arrangements needed strengthening.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm and respectful interactions. Staff supported people’s dignity and used their preferred names.
“We observed staff demonstrating kind and observant care of people, adjusting a cardigan or other clothing to improve people's appearance and dignity.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered people’s routines, preferences, communication needs and health conditions. Staff showed that they knew people well.
“Care plans were personalised and focused on people's strengths and what they could do for themselves as well as what they needed support with.” from the report
Health and nutrition
People were supported to attend health appointments and receive specialist input. Menus offered choice and meals were adapted for specialist dietary needs.
“The cook was made aware of people's preferences when they moved into the service and checked that the menu was inclusive to include some of their favourites.” from the report
Clean and maintained premises
The home was clean and tidy, and equipment and fire safety systems were checked. People said repairs were dealt with quickly.
“A good standard of cleanliness was maintained in the service, which was tidy with no odours.” from the report
Incident reporting during absence
needs fixingTwo serious falls happened while the registered manager was away and were not reported to CQC at the time. The manager agreed to make sure people covering the role understood their reporting duties.
“The provider needed to ensure those in charge in the registered managers absence understood their responsibilities to report notifiable events to CQC.” from the report
Quality improvement tracking
needs fixingAudits were being completed, but there was no overall system to record shortfalls, deadlines and progress. Managers agreed to introduce an action or development plan.
“There was no mechanism for providing an overview to the provider or management team of shortfalls identified through audits, the setting of timescales for addressing these and monitoring of progress towards completion of shortfalls.” from the report
Staffing flexibility
needs fixingAll shifts were covered, but the available staff pool was small. During absences, some staff were working six or seven 12-hour shifts in one week.
“Although all shifts were covered from within the staff team the pool of available staff was small, therefore the staff rota showed that during weeks where there was planned and unplanned staff absence, there was an over reliance on a few staff working six or seven 12-hour shifts in one week.” from the report
Medicine guidance
minorMedicine administration records were completed well, but guidance for medicines given when needed lacked detail. Two missing guidelines were replaced during the inspection.
“The registered manager replaced the missing protocols, all of which would also benefit from added detail to better inform, guide and aid staff consistency in administration.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure the person in charge reports serious falls and other notifiable events to CQC when the registered manager is away?
- 02How do you now record quality shortfalls, set deadlines and check that actions have been completed?
- 03How many staff are now available to cover sickness and other absences, and how do you avoid relying on staff to work six or seven 12-hour shifts?
- 04How are as-needed medicine instructions kept detailed and up to date for each person?
- 05How do you record and monitor the actions agreed during provider and area manager visits?
This was an unannounced first rating inspection covering all five key questions; the service had no previous rating under its new registration. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 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 Old Farm House Residential Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- December 2018Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at The Old Farm House Residential Home →
- October 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 October 2017.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.