You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 April 2017

The inspection took place on 15 February 2017 and was unannounced.

Tanners Farm House is a care home which provides care and support for up to seven people who have a learning disability, such as autism. At the time of our visit there were four people living at the home.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

Our last inspection was in October 2015 where we identified concerns with medicines management, the application of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and a lack of quality assurance systems in place. At this inspection we found actions had been taken to ensure the regulations had been met and the service had improved.

People’s medicines were managed and administered safely by trained staff. The registered manager carried out regular medicines audits and staff kept up to date records of medicines. Staff worked alongside healthcare professionals to meet people’s needs.

There were sufficient numbers of staff present to meet people’s needs safely. Staff supported people to take part in activities and to go out regularly. Appropriate checks were in place to ensure that staff were suitable for their roles.

The provider had systems in place to audit the quality of the care that people received, as well as the safety of the premises and measures in place for emergencies such as fire. Plans were in place to protect people should an emergency situation occur.

People were supported by staff who knew them well and were kind and compassionate. Care plans were person-centred and where people’s needs changed this was responded to by staff. Reviews took place regularly.

People lived in an inclusive atmosphere in which their independence was encouraged. People were supported by staff to carry out household tasks as well as develop skills such as preparing meals. Staff knew people’s food preferences and people’s dietary requirements were met. Risk assessments were in place to keep people safe whilst maximising their independence.

Staff felt well supported by management and had input into how the home was run. Staff had access to training courses and were knowledgeable in how to support people with autism. Staff had regular supervision.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected by considerate staff. Staff knew how to respond if they had safeguarding concerns. People and relatives were informed of how to make a complaint and where complaints had bene made, they were responded to appropriately.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 April 2017

The service was safe.

People’s medicines were managed and administered safely.

There were sufficient staff present to meet people’s needs. Checks had been carried out to ensure staff were appropriate for their roles.

Risk assessments were carried out and measures were in place to minimise harm.

Accidents and incidents were responded to and measures were put in place to prevent them reoccurring.

Staff were trained in safeguarding adults and knew how to report any concerns.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 April 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported to prepare meals of their choice.

Staff had suitable training to meet the needs of the people that they supported.

People were provided support in line with the guidance of the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

Staff worked alongside healthcare professionals to meet people’s needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 April 2017

The service was caring.

People were supported by kind and compassionate staff.

Staff knew the people that they were supporting well.

People were supported in a way that promoted their independence.

Staff provided support in a way that respected people’s privacy and dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 April 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s care plans reflected their needs and preferences.

Regular reviews took place to identify changes in people’s needs.

People and relatives were provided with means to make a complaint.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 April 2017

The service was well-led.

Quality assurance systems were in place. Where improvements were identified these were actioned by management.

Feedback from relatives was regularly sought in order to identify improvements.

Staff felt well supported by management and told us they had input into how the home was run.