You are here

Archived: Home Farm Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 4 August 2016

This unannounced inspection took place on 23 June 2016. We last inspected this service in September 2014.

Home Farm is a small care home for up to five people with a learning disability and complex support needs. It is run by West House, a not for profit organisation which provides a range of services to people with learning disabilities in the Cumbria area. The accommodation consists of a large converted farmhouse located in the large village of Camerton on the outskirts of the town of Workington.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

The management team and the provider were quite clear that the service was not meeting the needs of the people who used it. This was because people who used the service were incompatible due to differing needs. The provider had taken steps to decommission the service and ensure that the people who used it were found appropriate accommodation. The registered manager and the operational manager had a clear idea about the future of the people who used the service.

Risk assessments were carried out and plans put in place to reduce risks to people’ safety and welfare. Support plans were easy to read and based on assessment and reflected the needs of people.

Staff working in the service were aware of different types of abuse and knew how to report it. The service had clear policies relating to safeguarding. Staff had received appropriate training and knew how to support people.

People received support with their medicines from appropriately trained staff.

The service assessed people’s nutritional and hydration needs and provided support accordingly.

Staff had developed good relationships with people and communicated in a warm and caring manner. They were aware of how to treat people with dignity and respect. Policies were in place that outlined acceptable standards in this area.

There was a complaints procedure in place that outlined how to make a complaint and how long it would take to deal with.

We made a recommendation that the service reviewed how it prevented and managed violence and aggression.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 4 August 2016

The service was not always safe.

We made a recommendation about the management of violence and aggression.

The provider had identified that there were compatibility issues between people within the service and had decided to decommission the home.

Staff knew how to identify and report potential abuse.



Updated 4 August 2016

The service was effective.

People told us that staff were good at their jobs.

Staff had received appropriate training.

People received adequate support with nutrition and hydration where necessary.



Updated 4 August 2016

The service was caring.

People were treated with dignity and respect.

People told us that the staff who supported them were kind to them.

People�s privacy was protected.



Updated 4 August 2016

The service was responsive.

Care plans were written in a clear and concise way so that they were easily understood.

People were able to raise issues with the service in a number of ways including formally via a complaints process.

People were supported to access the local community.



Updated 4 August 2016

The service was well led.

Staff told us that they felt supported by the management team.

There was a quality assurance system in use.

The registered manager had clear expectations of her staff in reference to the quality of care provided.