You are here

Archived: Home Farm Good


Inspection carried out on 23 June 2016

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 18 February 2014

During a routine inspection

On our visit we were told that there were discussions with adult social care about the mix of people living in the home. We saw that some people's needs took up alot of staff time. Some people in the home had limited verbal communication; we therefore spent time observing people's behaviour and interactions with staff. We observed lively and positive interactions between staff and people in the home which made for a relaxed and friendly atmosphere.

People told us that they felt that their needs were being met by the staff working at Home Farm. One person told us, �Staff help me to go out. They know me well and stop me worrying.�

People told us that staff treated them well and they liked spending time talking with staff and going out with them. People were accessing the local community well and were helped to go out to places of their choice or to where they gained enjoyment from.

We found that the building required improvement both in the decoration and in the facilities it offered to people in order to meet their needs. We saw plans for this to take place shortly, and this included improving the facilities in the "quiet room".

We saw the home involved other services to ensure people received timely healthcare to maintain their health and wellbeing.

We found that records in the home were well kept being up to date and reviewed on a regular basis.

Inspection carried out on 12 December 2012

During a routine inspection

We saw four people at home across the inspection. Some people in the home had limited communication and staff helped them to communicate with us. We spoke with two people who both said they were happy in the home and felt that staff were meeting their needs. One person said, �The staff are great, they know just how to help me when I get a bit stressed. I let them know when I�m not happy.� The other person said they loved going out with staff and spending time with them. Both these people thought that on the whole people living in the home got on very well.

We observed staff interacting with people in ways that demonstrated that they were skilled and trained to support people with behaviours that may be challenging. People were being supported in a sensitive and dignified manner.

Staff reported that they had received high levels of training to support people to lead a good quality of life. They had enabled people in the home to take part in numerous community activities and to go on holidays. For some people in the home we were told that this had not been possible at other placements or homes they had previously lived in.

A noticeable feature of the home was how well staff had developed links with social and healthcare professionals to seek expert advice. Staff working as part of a multi-disciplinary team ensured that support offered to people was individual and targeted to each person's specific needs.

Inspection carried out on 26 January 2012

During a themed inspection looking at Learning Disability Services

Home Farm was a new service developed over the last 18 months, after the previous care home closed down as a consequence of flooding in the local area. The new service, while still being a care home was developed as a specialist challenging behaviour service for women, and was intended to be a long stay option for people.

At the time of our inspection there were five people living at the home. We spoke with four people and the fifth had no verbal communication.

We spoke with two people in more depth to get their views of the service; the other two people did not wish to speak with us at any length. We observed people interacting with staff during the inspection and we noted positive engagement and interactions.

People told us that they felt safe and were comfortable approaching staff with any concerns. They said that staff treated them well and they liked spending time talking with staff and going out with them. Stating �I do a lot of things and staff help me to go out� �I like going into town, and for walks�. �I like it here and I am looked after.�

People told us that they felt that their needs were being met by the staff working at Home Farm. Each person we spoke with knew they had a key worker and said they spent time talking with them. People were focused on their plans having a good understanding of why they had been admitted to the home and the plans and goals for the future. One person was pleased at the involvement in their care plan and meetings saying �I have meetings to talk about what I am going to do. Another said

The staff sit with me and go through it�. �I like helping in the kitchen, I am happy with the other residents, I like the house, I like my big room with en-suite�.

Relatives told us that the move to Home Farm for their relative had been a positive one. They were confident that staff were meeting the needs of their relative and that they had been kept well informed and appropriately involved in the care. One relative who was very positive about the staff and the skills they had in working with their relative said it was �a shame that something as good as this could not be a bit closer to home� so they could maintain links with friends and neighbours. They said they had tried other services previously but their relative�s behaviour had significantly deteriorated. Since they arrived at Home Farm they had been impressed and relieved that staff knew what they were doing and they had settled well.

The relative was keen to tell us that �I have visited lots of times to Home Farm and I have never seen anything I wasn�t happy with�.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)