We carried out a review of the data available to us about Offmore Farm Residential Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Offmore Farm Residential Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Offmore Farm Residential Home is a residential care home providing personal care to up to people. The service provides support to 28 older people who may live with dementia and/or a physical disability. At the time of our inspection there were 27 people using the service.
Offmore Farm Residential Home accommodates 28 people in one adapted building across three floors.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People felt safe and well supported by the staff. Staff recognised different types of abuse and how to report them. The registered manager understood their safeguarding responsibilities and how to protect people from abuse. Potential risks to people's health and wellbeing had been identified and were managed safely. People, and where appropriate, their relatives, had been involved with decisions in how to reduce risk associated with people’s care. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to keep people safe and meet their needs. People's medicines were managed and stored in a safe way. Safe practice was carried out to reduce the risk of infection.
People's care needs had been assessed and reviews took place with the person and, where appropriate, their relative. Staff had the training and support to be able to care for people in line with best practice. People were supported to have a healthy balanced diet and were given food they enjoyed. Staff worked with external healthcare professionals and followed their guidance and advice about how to support people following best practice. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did support this practice.
All people and staff felt the service was well run. The registered manager was visible within the home and listened to people's and staff's views about the way the service was run. The registered manager had put checks into place to monitor the quality of the service provision. The provider had additional checks in place to ensure the service provision was of a good standard.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 26 October 2019).
The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve.
At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Why we inspected
This inspection was carried out to follow up on action we told the provider to take at the last inspection.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 20 August 2019. Breaches of legal requirements were found. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve.
We undertook this focused inspection to check they had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Safe, Effective and Well-led which contain those requirements.
For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Offmore Farm Residential Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
People’s experience of using this service:
Potential risks to people had been identified and people were involved with decisions in how to reduce the risk of harm, however, staff were inconsistent with the support given to people, which was in line with healthcare professionals advice. People’s medicines were not consistently administered or stored in a safe way. People continued to tell us they felt safe and well supported by staff. Staff understood safeguarding procedures, however we found that where staff had identified and recorded ‘unexplained bruises’ they had not escalated these concerns promptly to management team to take appropriate action in a timely way. There were enough staff on duty to keep people safe and meet their needs. Safe practice was carried out to reduce the risk of infection.
People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did not support this practice. People were supported to have a healthy balanced diet and were given food they enjoyed. Staff worked with external healthcare professionals and mostly followed their guidance and advice about how to support people following best practice. Staff had recently received up to date training, however the provider did not have systems in place to test staff knowledge and understanding to gain assurances staff implemented this correctly.
Staff treated people as individuals and respected the choices they made. People’s care was delivered in a timely way, and health care professional advice was sought when a person became unwell. People were supported and encouraged to maintain their hobbies and interests. The staff supported people who lived with dementia and engaged people in their individual interests and preferences. People had access to information about how to raise a complaint. Where complaints had been received, the provider had managed these in line with their policy.
The provider did not have established checks in place to gain assurances that the service was safe and effective. We found there were inconsistencies with the care provided, which placed people at potential risk of harm. The provider confirmed to us that an external auditor would be sourced to ensure the service was complying with the regulations and meeting the needs of the people who lived there. The manager had identified shortfalls and was working with the provider and the staff group to implement and embed new practices. The provider listened to people and relatives. Staff felt listened to and valued by the manager, they felt involved in making decisions about their new roles and responsibilities.
The last rating for this service was good (published 24 February 2017).
Why we inspected; This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. Please see the safe, effective and well-led sections of this full report.
We have identified breaches in relation to safe care and treatment and gaining people’s consent and the leadership and governance at this inspection.
Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.
Follow up: We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection in November 2015, the service was rated good. This inspection took place on the 26 January 2017 and was unannounced. At this inspection we found the service remained good.
Staff we spoke with were aware of how to recognise signs of abuse, and systems were in place to guide them in reporting these. They were knowledgeable about how to manage people’s individual risks, and were able to respond to people’s needs. People told us they were supported in a safe way and had their medicines as prescribed.
People told us staff knew how to support them and relatives said staff were well trained. Staff had up to date knowledge and training to support people. People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. People had food and drink they enjoyed and had choices available to them, to maintain a healthy diet. People said they had access to health professionals when they needed to. Relatives were confident their family member was supported to maintain their well-being and had access to the health professionals as they needed.
People said they were happy living at the home and supported by patient and kind staff. Relatives told us they were happy with the service their family member received. They told us staff were patient and knew people’s preferences and respected them. People living at the home were able to see their friends and relatives as they wanted. We saw staff treated people with dignity and respect and had a good knowledge of people’s rights.
People and their relatives were included in how care was provided. People told us they had interesting things to do, and we saw staff spent time with people doing things they enjoyed. The management team sought people’s views and acted upon them. People and their relatives knew how to raise complaints and felt confident that they would be listened to and action taken when needed.
The registered manager promoted an inclusive approach to providing care for people living at the home. For example, people and their relatives were encouraged to attend regular meetings, and to complete questionnaires to share their views about the quality of the service. The management team had actioned suggestions made by people, their families and staff where possible, and took a proactive approach to making improvements. The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of care and treatment people living at the home received. The registered manager had identified where improvements were needed and had a plan in place to ensure these were made in a timely way.
Offmore Farm Residential Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 27 older people, some of whom may have a diagnosis of dementia. On the day of our inspection there were 27 people living at the home.
The inspection took place on the 7 October 2015 and was unannounced.
There was a registered manager at this home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Registered providers and registered managers are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People and their relatives said they had no concerns about the care their family member received. They told us staff were caring and promoted people’s independence. People told us they were able to maintain important relationships with support from staff. Staff we spoke with demonstrated an awareness and recognition of abuse and systems were in place to guide them in reporting these.
Staff were knowledgeable about how to manage people’s individual risks, and were able to respond to people’s needs. People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage them. Staff had up to date knowledge and training to support people.
We saw staff treated people with dignity and respect whilst supporting their needs. Staff knew people well, and took people’s preferences into account and respected them. Staff had attended specific training in dementia to support the care they delivered. This gave staff the skills to use different ways to ensure people understood what was happening around them.
The provider had consistently assessed people’s ability to make specific decisions about their daily life. For example, if people were able to go outside on their own. Applications had been submitted to the supervisory body so the decision to restrict somebody’s liberty was only made by people who had suitable authority to do so.
We saw people had food and drink they enjoyed. People and their relatives said they had choices available to them, to maintain a healthy diet. People were supported to eat and drink well in a discreet and dignified way. Staff knew people’s needs and supported them to manage their risks.
People and their relatives told us they had access to health professionals as soon as they were needed. Relatives said they felt included in planning for the care their relative received and were always kept up to date with any concerns. Staff knew about people’s histories and involved people in pastimes that were centred on them as a person.
People were able to see their friends and relatives as they wanted. People and their relatives said that staff supported them because they cared rather than because it was their job.
People and their relatives knew how to raise complaints and felt confident that they would be listened to and action taken to resolve any concerns. The registered manager had arrangements in place to ensure people were listened to and action could be taken if required.
The registered manager promoted a person focused approach to providing care for people living at the home. People who lived at the home and staff were encouraged to be involved in regular meetings to share their views and concerns about the quality of the service. The provider and registered manager had effective systems in place to monitor how the service was provided, to ensure people received quality care.
We also spoke with three medical professionals, a social worker and two relatives who were visiting, the registered manager and three members of staff who provided care for people at the home.
Staff provided care and support that met people's needs. We found that staff knew about the needs of the people they cared for. We looked at four people's care records and found that these contained guidance for staff on how to meet their needs. We saw that people's needs had been reviewed regularly. When it had been necessary staff had co-operated with medical professionals.
People had been protected from the risk of harm and abuse because staff had received training and had a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities with regard to safeguarding. However, not all members of staff had a clear understanding of how decisions in people's best interests had been made. The provider had provided staff with training that meant that they could provide appropriate care and support.
The people we spoke with told us they were happy with the home and the staff. One person told us, 'I couldn't fault them. I couldn't have been happier anywhere else. I can have a laugh.' Another person said, 'They're very good. I couldn't have had a better place.'
One of the visitors said, 'You always feel welcome when you visit.' They were pleased with the care their relative was receiving and told us, 'She's definitely gained weight since she's been here.'
Staff knew about the needs of the people they were caring for. We looked at care records for three people and found that these contained guidance for staff on how to meet their needs. We saw that people's needs were reviewed regularly.
People told us that they felt safe living at the home and knew who to speak to if they had any concerns. Staff had been trained how to recognise signs of abuse and knew how to report concerns.
We saw that staff were supported to be trained to an appropriate standard and we looked at records which showed that the provider was regularly monitoring the quality of its service.
People said the home was cosy and friendly and they were very happy to live there.