The Farmhouse

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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. Relatives told us they felt their loved ones were safe living in The Farmhouse. One relative said, “I know [name] is safe and I can rely on staff.” Staff had a good understanding of how to support people to stay safe and had undertaken relevant training. Where people were subject to restrictions to enhance their safety best interest decisions had been recorded and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been authorised.

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.

Risks to people’s health, safety and welfare had been assessed and were regularly reviewed. Plans were in place to carefully manage identified risks whilst supporting people to maintain meaningful lifestyles and choices. Staff knew people well and supported them to manage their emotions and distress in positive ways. This minimised the need for restrictive interventions. Relatives told us staff understood the risks people faced and managed them well.

The provider generally detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment and some improvements had been made since our last inspection. However, where areas of concern had been identified and scheduled for repair or maintenance, work had not always been carried out within agreed timescales. For example, there were potential problems with damp and damage to flooring in some areas. Additionally, the provider’s system for tracking repair and maintenance had not clearly recorded any reasons for the delay in works being carried out. The provider’s area manager acknowledged the need to review how repair and maintenance issues were recorded.

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

There were enough staff employed to provide consistent and familiar support which was important for people who lived in The Farmhouse. Staffing levels enabled people to receive the personal support hours they had been assessed as needing. Staff told us they were well supported in their roles and received regular supervision sessions which they found useful.

Safer recruitment practices were in place. Pre-employment checks were carried out including verification of references, right to work and enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks.

New staff completed an induction programme which included mandatory training subjects and shadowing experienced staff. Staff then completed regular updates of mandatory and service specific training aligned to people’s needs. For example, capacity and decision making, administration of rescue medicines and dementia awareness.

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.

Infection prevention and control arrangements had significantly improved since our last inspection. The environment looked visibly clean. Audits showed regular checks of, for example, mattresses, fridge and freezer temperatures and hand washing. Any shortfalls identified had been addressed. Cleaning equipment and substances were stored safely. Staff were seen using personal protective equipment (PPE) in the right way when required.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.