• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Farcroft

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

North Road, Wellington, Telford, Shropshire, TF1 3EU (01952) 223447

Provided and run by:
Coverage Care Services Limited

All Inspections

23 October 2018

During a routine inspection

Farcroft is a care home that provides accommodation, care and support for up to 41 older people some of who may be living with dementia. Accommodation is arranged on the ground and first floor with stairs and a passenger lift linking each floor.

This inspection was carried out on 23 October 2018 and was unannounced. On the day of the inspection there were 37 people living at the home. The home had a registered manager who was present throughout the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

At our last inspection of the service 3 and 4 August 2017 we rated the service as requires improvement as we found that improvements to safe, effective and well led were necessary. At this inspection the provider demonstrated to us that improvements had been made.

People felt safe at the home and there were enough staff on duty. People received the medicines they needed safely and staff understood their responsibilities about keeping people safe. Staff were using technology effectively to ensure that people's medicine needs were met in a timely and safe way. Risks were identified and managed well and any incidents and accidents were monitored to inform practice and make improvements to the service. We found one incidence of unexplained bruising on a person that had not been thoroughly explored. We have made a recommendation about this.

Staff had received the training and support they needed to carry out their roles effectively. People had confidence in the staff and were content with the care they received. People had enough to eat and drink and they enjoyed the food on offer. People were offered choices and their preferences were respected. Risks associated with nutritional needs were identified and managed and people received the support they needed to have a healthy diet.

People were supported to access health care services when they needed to. Staff described positive working relationships with health care professionals. People's needs had been assessed using formats in line with current good practice. Staff understood their responsibilities about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff always asked people for their consent before providing care or support.

People and relatives spoke highly of the caring nature of the staff. Staff treated people kindly. Staff knew people well and treated them with respect. People were included in decisions about their care and support as much as possible. Where appropriate, their family or representatives were also included. Staff supported people to remain independent and promoted their dignity. People's privacy was respected and their personal information was kept securely.

Staff understood how to provide care in a personalised way and people's choices and preferences were considered. Staff had time to spend with people, supporting them to follow their interests and faith and to maintain contact with people who were important to them. People were supported to plan for care at the end of their life.

The home was clean and hygienic. Staff understood their responsibilities regarding prevention of the spread of infection.

People knew how to complain and felt confident that any issues would be addressed. There was a complaint system in place to record any concerns and the actions that were taken. The registered manager used complaints and suggestions to drive improvements at the service.

There was a clear management structure at the home and staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a firm understanding of the ethos of the home to provide care and support in line with the values of the provider. Staff understood the provider's equality policy and supported people with their diverse needs. Governance arrangements were embedded within practice and regular audits identified any shortfalls in standards of care. Action plans showed how learning from incidents and accidents was also used to drive improvements at the home. People, their relatives and staff were included in planning any developments at the home.

The registered manager had informed the CQC of significant events in a timely way. They were committed to keeping up to date with best practice and updates in health and social care.

3 August 2017

During a routine inspection

Farcroft is a residential care home. They are registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to 41 people. There were 36 people living at the home during our inspection, some of whom were living with dementia. People were cared for in four units over two floors. The Kensington unit was situated on the first floor and provided respite support for people who accessed the home on a short term basis. On the ground floor were the Balmoral, and Sandringham units that provided support to people with physical health needs. Also on the ground floor was the Windsor unit which provided support to people living with dementia.

At the last inspection on 15 July 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found that improvements were required and we have changed the rating to requires improvement.

The provider had a range of quality monitoring systems in place to identify areas for improvements. However, these had not identified all the concerns we found during our inspection.

The provider had not ensured people’s medicine was stored safely and securely. This left people at risk of accessing medicines that were not prescribed for them and at risk of cross infection. There was also a risk that the effectiveness of medicines was compromised as they had not been stored at the temperature recommended by the manufacturers.

People received support to take their medicines when they needed them to promote good health. Staff monitored people’s health and made healthcare appointments as necessary.

The provider had not consistently ensured decisions made on people’s behalf were made in their best interests. Staff sought people’s consent before they supported them. Staff provided information in a way people could understand to enable them to make their own decisions wherever possible.

Care plans were not always kept up to date and did not always reflect people’s needs and the support provided by staff.

Food and fluid charts put in place to monitor concerns about certain people’s nutritional intake were not consistently completed and it was unclear how much people had eaten or drunk. People enjoyed the food they received and were given choice. Snacks and drinks were made readily available to people.

People were protected from harm and abuse by staff who were able to recognise the signs of abuse and knew how to report concerns. Staff were aware of the risks to people and how to minimise them without restricting their independence.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring. Staff treated people with respect and maintained their dignity. Staff had formed positive working relationships with people and their relatives. Staff often gave up their free time to take people out and to complete fund raising events to make improvements to people’s experience of the service.

People received care and support that was personal to them and responsive to their changing needs. People were able to spend their time doing things they enjoyed and had access to a range of activities should they wish to take part.

The provider sought people’s views on the quality of the service to make any required improvements. People and their relatives felt comfortable to raise any concerns or complaints with staff or management. The provider had a clear complaints procedure and the registered manager conducted investigations where necessary.

There was an open and inclusive culture in the home. People and their relatives found the registered manager and management team easy to talk with. Staff felt were supported and listened to. They were able to access to training and support relevant to their roles.

15 July 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place 15 July 2015 and was unannounced. At the last inspection in October 2013, the provider was meeting all of the requirements of the regulations we reviewed. .

Farcroft is registered to provide accommodation with nursing or personal care for a maximum of 41 people. The home is divided into four units. On the day of the inspection 37 people were living at the home.

The home had a registered manager in post they were present for the inspection. 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's medicines were not managed safely. Staff did not follow the provider’s guidance in administration, storage and disposal of people's medicines. Therefore we could not be assured that people received their medicines as prescribed.

On the day of the inspection the home was short staffed and people told us they sometimes had to wait for assistance. There were not always enough staff on duty which did impact on the time some people had to wait for their care. The registered manager told us that they had just recruited some new staff who were due to start once their pre-employment checks had been completed.

Risks to people were identified and plans were in place and centred around the needs of each person. These provided staff with the information and detailed the equipment needed to keep people safe. We saw risks were reviewed and updated when people’s needs changed and kept staff informed on how they should manage potential risks to people.

There was a recruitment procedure in place which was followed. This ensured staff were appropriately checked before they started work at the home.

Staff received appropriate training and support to carry out their roles. Some staff were not able to tell us who had their liberty deprived and acknowledged that they required more training about protecting people’s human rights. The registered manager agreed that this was something that the staff needed. We saw assessments had been carried out for people that lacked mental capacity. Best interest meetings were held when important decisions had to be made on behalf of people who lacked capacity.

People had a choice of food and we saw special diets were catered for. A variety of group and social activities were available for people to choose from.

People were supported to access health care professionals when they needed it such as doctors, dentists, physiotherapists and chiropodists.

People knew how to raise complaints and felt they were listened to and their concerns acted on. We saw complaints were managed and in line with the policy.

People were given the opportunity to share their views about the service in satisfaction questionnaires and meetings. There were systems in place to regularly audit the quality of the service and the registered manager acted where audits identified improvements were required. However, these were not always effective. The registered manager was supported by the provider operations director who also carried out audits at the home.

2 October 2013

During a routine inspection

Staff spoke knowledgably about the people they supported. They demonstrated a clear understanding of the individual needs of the people whose care we looked at in detail. They shared examples of how they offered people choices in their daily lives and how they promoted their independence. This meant staff were caring.

People were supported to maintain optimum health. We saw people's health and wellbeing was closely monitored and reviewed in people's best interests. This meant that the service was responsive to people's changing needs.

Staff experienced a robust recruitment and induction process. This gave them the skills and knowledge they needed to keep people safe and to meet their individual needs.

Systems were in place to gain people's views and to monitor and assess the quality of the service.

12 October 2012

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with told us that they liked living at Farcroft. They told us that nothing was too much trouble and that staff were very kind. Some people had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us of their experiences. We spent time in one of the units to carry out a short period of observation.

Staff used clear procedures to get valid consent from people who used the service. We viewed records that showed people had been involved in and consulted about their care and support. Where a person lacked capacity, 'best interest' meetings were held with people who knew and understood the person.

The service had systems in place to manage and monitor the prevention and control of infection within the home.

People told us that the staff asked them if they were satisfied with the service. They said that they were able to express their wishes and share their views about how they were feeling. People said that if they had any concerns or worries that they would speak with a member of staff or the manager. We saw records that showed the provider had systems in place to monitor and review people's experiences and complaints.

10 September 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with six people who used the service. They told us that the staff always asked them how they would like things to be done, always respected their privacy and treated them with respect. People said they were 'Very happy with their care' and that they 'Could not have better treatment'.

People who used the service told us that staff always came promptly when they needed help. They said staff talked to them about how they liked their care to be provided.

People said there was always enough staff on duty and they never felt rushed. They said that the staff were competent and always acted professionally. We observed how staff interacted with people. Staff were kind and courteous and included them in activities of drawing Easter pictures.

One person said, 'I feel safe in the home and staff listen to any concerns I might have. I would not hesitate to make a complaint if I had one'. Staff spoke of their awareness of how to keep people safe from harm. They said the training they received was good and always updated.

People who used the service spoke of being involved in how it was run. They said they could attend meetings and staff spoke to them about their care. People told us that staff 'Spoke nicely to their relatives' when they visited. People explained that there was a 'family feel' to the home and they felt happy to share any concerns directly with staff.