We carried out a review of the data available to us about Farndale House Residential Care 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 Farndale House Residential Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Farndale House is a residential care home providing personal care for up to three people who have a learning disability. At the time of our inspection three people were living at the home. Accommodation is provided in single bedrooms.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
People's experience of using this service and what we found
Staff were extremely committed to delivering exceptional care to people. The service demonstrated a strong and visible person centred culture which put people at the heart of everything they did. There was a deeply embedded person centred and inclusive ethos, and the home demonstrated the positive achievements made to improve people's quality and experience of life.
People were supported by staff who were exceptionally caring and compassionate. They cared for people like they would their own family members. People were valued as individuals and treated with respect. We observed peoples' support during our visit, staff were gentle and showed people kindness and affection, within their professional boundaries.
People continued to receive an exceptionally personalised and responsive service because staff had an excellent understanding of their needs. Staff demonstrated a high level of empathy, understood people very well and gave priority to the things that were most important to people. Staff were committed to enabling people to live fulfilling lives and supported them to achieve their goals.
There were strong links to the local community which were utilised to benefit people using the service and this enhanced their daily lives and provided them with equal opportunities. Staff responded to overcome any constraints presented when supporting people to live fulfilled lives.
The leadership of the home promoted a positive culture that was person-centred and inclusive. We received very positive feedback from people and staff about the quality of care and support people received and the overall management of the home.
Health and care records were kept to good standards and staff’s knowledge of people was extremely good. This enabled staff to recognise any changes in people and seek early access to healthcare services, this ensured positive continuity of care.
Staff knew how to keep people safe from harm. Risks were assessed and managed well. People received their medicines as they should.
Staff were recruited safely. There was a very low turnover of staffing which meant people were supported by a staff team who knew them and their preferences extremely well.
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 supported
this practice.
Staff had access to relevant training and regular supervision to equip them with the knowledge and skills to care for people effectively.
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them
having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 02 June 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our reinspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection in March 2015, the service was rated as Good with one area rated as Outstanding. At this inspection we found that the service remained Good with one area rated as Outstanding.
There continued to be sufficient numbers of staff employed to make sure people received the support they needed, and those staff had been safely recruited. People indicated to us they felt safe living at the home.
Staff had continued to receive appropriate training to give them the knowledge and skills they required to carry out their roles. This included training on the administration of medicines and on how to protect people from the risk of harm.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff were kind, caring, compassionate and patient. They respected people’s privacy and dignity and encouraged them to be as independent as possible.
Care planning described the person and the level of support they required. Care plans were reviewed regularly to ensure they remained an accurate record of the person and their day to day needs.
People were given the opportunity to feedback their views of the service provided and were encouraged and supported to express their concerns or make a complaint.
The care people received continued to be exceptionally responsive to their needs. People took part in activities of their choice and had regular holidays and weekends away with the family.
The registered manager and assistant manager carried out audits to ensure people were receiving the care and support that they required, and to monitor that staff were following the policies, procedures and systems in place.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This inspection took place on 12 March 2015 and was announced. We previously visited the service on 17 October 2013 and found that the registered provider met the regulations that we assessed.
The service is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to three people with a learning disability. On the day of the inspection there were two people living at the home. The home is located in Beverley, a market town in the East Riding of Yorkshire and is close to local amenities. Each person who lives at the home has a single bedroom and they share a bathroom. People have their own living room but usually spend time with the family.
The registered provider is not required to have a separate registered manager in post as the service is managed by the registered provider. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they 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 told us that they felt safe living at the home. There were policies and procedures in place on safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse and staff had completed appropriate training on this topic.
We observed good interactions between people who lived at the home and staff on the day of the inspection. People told us that staff were kind and caring and this was supported by the health and social care professionals who we spoke with.
People were supported to make their own decisions about day to day matters and the registered person explained how best interest meetings would be held when more serious decisions needed to be made.
Medicines were administered safely by staff and the arrangements for ordering, storage and recording were robust.
People’s nutritional needs had been assessed and people told us that meals provided by the home were good. People were supported appropriately by staff to eat and drink safely and their special diets were catered for.
People who had to spend time in hospital were supported by staff from the home over a 24 hour period. This meant that staff who were knowledgeable about the person’s care and support needs continued to be involved in their care; this reduced the person’s anxiety about their stay in unfamiliar surroundings and promoted positive outcomes.
We noted that the arrangements to support people who were moving to another care setting were excellent. They were designed to provide continuity of care and a positive transition to another care home for the person concerned.
People who used to live with one person at Farndale House Residential Care Home and staff continued to visit the person in their new care home so that friendships could be maintained.
We saw that there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet the needs of people who lived at the home. This included providing people with meaningful activities and enabling them to remain in contact with family and friends.
New staff had been employed following the home’s recruitment and selection policies to ensure that only people considered suitable to work with vulnerable people had been employed.
There were systems in place to seek feedback from people who lived at the home in a format that they understood. There were also systems in place to enable people to raise complaints but none had been received during the previous 12 months, although several compliments had been received.
People who lived at the home and other people who we spoke with told us that the home was well managed. The quality audits undertaken by the registered person were designed to identify any areas of concern or areas that were unsafe.
We saw that people had individualised care plans in place and that these resulted in people receiving the specific support they needed to meet their needs. People were supported to be as independent as possible and to take part in activities they enjoyed. Other health professionals were involved in people's care when that support or advice was required. People's individual nutritional needs were met and their well-being was closely monitored.
People were assisted to take their medication in a safe way and the registered person and her husband had undertaken appropriate training in the management of medicines. They had also completed other training that had helped them to keep their knowledge and skills up to date.
The registered person was in the process of developing a new quality survey that could be understood by the people who lived at the home. Other quality monitoring systems that were in place at the home ensured that people received the service they required and that any improvements needed to the service had been identified.
We observed the interaction and communication between the people who lived at the home, and between people who lived at the home and staff. We saw that there was excellent rapport that led to person centred care being provided.