Farthings Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 84 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People were supported by a service with a strong and effective learning culture, where incidents and concerns were openly reported and used to improve practice, leading to ongoing measurable improvements in safety and care outcomes.

There was a strong,embedded culture of openness and transparency, where staff felt confident to speak up and take prompt action. This meant risks to people were identified early, acted upon without delay,reducing the likelihood of harm and ensuring people received safe, reliable care.One staff member told us, “We fix things before they become big things.”

Learning was shared effectively across the staff teamand translated into changes in practice, resulting in measurable improvements to outcomes for people.Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of how learning influenced their day-to-day care, ensuring people benefited from a service that was proactive rather than reactive.

Leaders fostered a culture where continuous improvement was expected and supported,as a result, people experienced a service that was safe, responsive and continually evolving to meet their needs, this resulted in better outcomes for people such as a reduction is pressure sores, recurring falls and an improvement in mental health and engagement.

The provider always worked with people and healthcare partners to design, establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was always well managed and monitored. They made sure there was always continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The registered manager maintained clear admission criteria to ensure people’s needs could be safely and effectively met from a service well matched to meet their needs. This ensured staff had the appropriate skills, knowledge, and confidence to provide high-quality care.

Families told us the assessment process was thorough and person centred. One family member shared that the home gathered extensive information prior to their relative moving in. Pre-assessment documentation was highly detailed, capturing people’s care needs, personal history, background, and cultural preferences. Care plans and referral information were established before admission and continually updated as staff got to know the person better.

The registered manager had devised a decision support tool (DST) that supported structured, data collation to assist in assessments based on people's current needs, leading to safer, more appropriate care decisions and improved outcomes. It's quality was recognised externally, with other professionals adopting and sharing it to enhance practice across services.

Information to be shared with the hospital was collated in a hospital passport, these were comprehensive and well maintained, ensuring accurate information sharing, reducing risk and enabling safer transitions and improved health outcomes.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

There were clear safeguarding systems, processes and practices in place to protect people from abuse, neglect and harassment. However, we identified an area for improvement in relation to information sharing between partner agencies where safeguarding concerns had been raised and investigated, irrespective of the outcome. Following our visit, the provider took appropriate action and revised their procedures to address this ensuring better protection and outcomes for people.

Staff treated people well and individuals felt safe living in the home, a person told us, “I’m very safe, the staff check on me regularly.”

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the home was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the home. We found that (DoLS) were applied for through the relevant local authority. Details of DoLS authorisations were documented in care plans, including review dates.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

The home actively involved people and their families in the development of care plans and risk assessments. One person told us, “We’ve worked out together what I can do and where I need some help.” Risk assessments were person-centred, proportionate, and focused on enabling people to maintain as much independence as possible.

Where people required supportive measures, such as thickened fluids or modified diets, these were regularly reviewed and, where appropriate, reduced in response to improvements in individuals’ conditions. This demonstrated positive outcomes for people and the service’s commitment to promoting independence and wellbeing.

Staff supported people to make informed choices and take positive risks, including where individuals chose to make decisions others may consider unwise. For example, one person chose to continue smoking. The home respected their wishes while taking reasonable steps to reduce associated risks, including obtaining nicotine patches should these be required. This reflected a compassionate, person-centred approach that balanced individual rights with safety considerations.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

People were cared for in a clean, safe, and well-maintained environment that was designed to meet their individual needs. The service demonstrated a commitment to continuous improvement, with ongoing environmental upgrades including the replacement of carpets with safety flooring as rooms became vacant.

Facilities, equipment, and technology were well maintained, regularly serviced line with legislative requirements, and used appropriately. A designated maintenance staff member monitored repairs and servicing schedules to ensure issues were addressed promptly. Safety measures, such as securely fitted furniture were appropriately managed to reduce risks within the environment.

Effective fire safety procedures were in place, supported by up-to-date Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs), which were regularly reviewed and stored accessibly within a dedicated PEEPs bag. Staff received regular fire safety and evacuation training, including the safe use of evacuation equipment.

Laundry processes supported effective infection prevention and control.

The provider made sure there were always enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received thorough support, supervision and strong development opportunities. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The service demonstrated a clear commitment to safe and effective staffing. Robust recruitment systems ensured all staff, including those employed through the provider’s own agency, were recruited safely and were competent to perform their roles. Recruitment records contained appropriate pre-employment checks, including Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) clearance and verification of professional registration. Induction processes were thorough and values-based, incorporating shadowing and competency assessments to ensure staff had the skills, knowledge and experience required to deliver safe and effective care.

Staffing levels and skill mix were proactively reviewed and adjusted in response to people’s changing needs, as well as feedback gathered through surveys, supervisions, and informal discussions. People consistently shared positive experiences, telling us, “I didn’t have to wait for help,” and “I never felt rushed when receiving help.”

Following a recent review, staffing levels were increased, which led to reduced call bell waiting times and significantly improved people’s comfort and overall wellbeing. Staff reported that they had the time to engage meaningfully with people, ensuring support was not solely task driven. One staff member explained that their purpose was “to come to work and make people’s day meaningful.”

Staff spoke positively about the support they received and described supervision sessions as meaningful, providing opportunities to reflect on practice, discuss development and raise concerns to support safe, effective care.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The home was exceptionally clean, well maintained, and hygienic, creating a safe and comfortable environment where people were protected as far as possible from the risk of infection. People were supported and encouraged to maintain their personal hygiene and independence wherever possible. During the inspection, a person living in the home described it as “spotless,” reflecting the consistently high standards maintained by staff.

Infection prevention and control (IPC) practices were well embedded across the service. Appropriate levels of personal protective equipment (PPE) were readily available, and staff demonstrated a strong understanding of when and how PPE should be used to keep people safe. Clear IPC policies, robust cleaning schedules, and effective monitoring systems supported consistently high standards of cleanliness within the home.

Staff demonstrated a strong awareness of food hygiene and the prevention of cross-contamination, particularly in relation to allergies and dietary requirements. Food hygiene records were consistently completed and well maintained.

Laundry processes were well organised and supported effective infection prevention and control, with a clear dirty-to-clean flow through the laundry area.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

The provider ensured medicines were managed safely and in line with people’s needs and preferences, with people involved in decisions wherever possible and Mental Capacity Act assessments completed when required.

Policies and systems reflected current guidance and local procedures, and staff received regular training and competency checks.

Controlled drugs and PRN medicines were managed safely, with clear, person-centred protocols, this resulted in reducing risks such as overuse.

The medicines environment was secure, well-managed and appropriately maintained. Improvements had been made to reduce excess stock, working with the pharmacy.

Regular audits and oversight, including of homely remedies, supported safe practice and continuous improvement reducing medication errors and improved oversight.