You are here

Archived: Roughcote Hall Farm Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 9 November 2016

This inspection took place on 6 October 2016 and was unannounced. We inspected to look for improvements following our previous inspection in March 2016 where we had found several breaches of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 in relation to people not receiving care that was safe, effective, caring, responsive or well led. We had issued three warning notices and told the provider to make improvements. At this inspection we found that the provider had made some improvements and they were no longer in breach of any Regulations, however further improvements were required. This report only covers our findings in relation to the areas of concern. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Roughcote Hall Farm on our website at

Roughcote Hall Farm provides accommodation and personal care for up to eight people with a learning disability. There were seven people using the service at the time of the inspection.

The service was not required to have a registered manager and was being managed by the 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 were still not always given the opportunities to engage in activities that met their individual needs and preferences due to the restrictions on times of any planned community activities and the amount of people attending the activity at the same time. The provider needed to seek advice and support to ensure people were receiving the financial benefits available to them.

People were safeguarded from abuse and potential abuse as the provider and staff knew what to do if they suspected abuse had taken place.

Staffing levels had been increased and there were sufficient staff to keep people safe and meet people's assessed needs.

People's medicines were being stored and administered safely. The provider had purchased new locked facilities to ensure medicines were stored safely and implemented a new medication audit to ensure that people received their medicines at the prescribed times.

Risks of harm to people were assessed and precautions put in place to minimise the risks to people.

The provider was following the principles of the MCA 2005 by ensuring that people who lacked the capacity to consent to their care were supported to make decisions that affected their care and welfare.

People were cared for by staff that were supported and trained to fulfil their roles.

People had access to health care when they became unwell or their health needs changed.

People's nutritional needs were met and people were supported to eat food of their choice.

People were treated with dignity and respect and they felt able to talk to staff or the provider if they had any concerns about their care.

The provider had made improvements to the systems they had in place to monitor the service and had been responsive to our previous inspection findings.

Inspection areas



Updated 9 November 2016

The service was safe.

People were safeguarded from harm and potential abuse.

Risks to people were assessed and minimised through the effective use of risk assessments.

There were sufficient staff available to meet people's needs.

People's medicines were stored and managed safely.



Updated 9 November 2016

The service was effective.

The provider followed the principles of the MCA 2005 to ensure people were supported to consent to their care.

Staff were supported and received training to be able to fulfil their role effectively.

People's nutritional needs were met.

People received health care support when they needed it or were unwell.



Updated 9 November 2016

The service was caring.

People were treated with dignity and respect.

People were offered choices about their day to day care.

People's privacy was maintained and their independence promoted.


Requires improvement

Updated 9 November 2016

The service was not consistently responsive.

Opportunities to engage in hobbies and interests of their choice were not always based on people's individual needs and preferences.

People knew how and who to complain to if they had any concerns.



Updated 9 November 2016

The service was well led.

The provider had responded since our previous inspection to improve the quality of service for people.

There were systems in place to monitor and continually improve the quality of service.

People and staff liked and respected the provider.