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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed. The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to people’s safe care and treatment.

This service scored 62 (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.

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

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. Records showed that not all environmental risks had been fully identified, recorded, mitigated, and/or reviewed to ensure people’s, and staff’s safety. During our visit we saw examples such as a redundant air vent protruding from the wall at a low level, a nail protruding from the wall and 2 kitchen draws with no front panels. Additionally, we saw unlocked garden sheds containing potentially harmful substances such as paint and cleaning products and a broken radiator cover. Records showed the broken radiator cover had been identified and escalated for repair, however repair had not yet taken place.

An action plan was put in place from 5 December 2024 following an external professional visit. However, following our visit the action plan was revised as although actions were rated as high priority there was no indication of any progress made or timescales for completion.

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

The provider did not always assess or manage the risk of infection and staff did not always follow best practice guidance. During our visit we saw examples such as mops which were in use and new mop head attachments,stored incorrectly and kept in an outdoor, unlocked shed. We also saw staff wearing outdoor coats when they were supporting people. Both these issues had been raised previously by external professionals. We saw chipped, scuffed and stained paintwork and walls which hindered effective cleaning. This meant people were at risk of experiencing avoidable infections. An action plan was in place from 5 December 2024 following an external professional visit. This included retraining of all staff in IPC best practice. However, following our visit the action plan was revised as although actions were rated as high priority there was no indication of any progress made or timescales for completion.

General surface cleaning for areas such as furniture and bed mattresses was satisfactory. The provider had an IPC policy in place. Records indicated staff had received training about infection prevention and control.

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