You are here

Heath Farm House Care Centre Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 11 January 2020

About the service

Heath Farm House Care Centre is a residential care home providing personal care to 10 people living with a learning disability and mental health needs. At the time of the inspection there were 10 people living in the home.

The care home provides support to people in one adapted building. The service had not been designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance as was designed prior to the development of the guidance. The principles of the guidance were embedded into the service delivery. 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.

The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to 10 people and was full. This is larger than current best practice guidance. We were aware the provider was reviewing the design of the building and the number of people able to reside there, to better incorporate the principles of the best practice guidance. In the interim attempts were made to mitigate any negative impact on people by the availability and access to other daytime accommodation and staff support. The home shared its access with a larger property, a farm shop and a day centre for people living with complex needs. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people to the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

There was not always enough staff to ensure people had their dedicated one to one staff support. Risks were not effectively managed or reported and risk assessments were not always up to date. The building was safely managed and there were good medicines care plans in place. Staff were safely recruited.

People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not support them in the least restrictive way. The policies and systems in place did not support decisions were made in people’s best interests. The limited communal areas did not always provide people with safe space when emotions were heightened and required de-escalating in quiet areas. Staff had access to training but practical training was mostly out of date. This included moving and handling and medicines administration. Staff supervision and team meetings did not routinely take place in a formal way but staff told us the registered manager was always available and they received a newsletter when team meetings were not held. The chef had a good understanding of people’s dietary requirements and their likes and dislikes.

People were involved in decisions about how they spent their days and we saw positive interactions between staff and people in the home. The home had two cars to enable people to access the community independently or in small groups and daily activities were arranged. The outcomes for people using the service mostly reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support did not always focus on them having as many opportunities as possible to gain new skills but people were supported to become more independent.

There were good personalised care plans in place for people, however, some of this information was disjointed and had not been effectively used to develop risk assessments and risk management plans. Each person had a positive behaviour plan but this was not incorporated into their main care plan. Staff were knowledgeable about people and verbal handovers were completed. We were told no complaints

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 11 January 2020

The service was not safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 11 January 2020

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 11 January 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 11 January 2020

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 11 January 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.