We carried out a review of the data available to us about Housing 21 - Farmers Court on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Housing 21 - Farmers Court, you can give feedback on this service.
Farmers Court provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is rented, and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support services. There were 29 people living at Farmers Court who received personal care from care staff in their own homes. These arrangements ensured people lived as independently as possible.
Not everyone using Farmers Court received the regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided.
There was an experienced registered manager in post. A requirement of the service’s registration is that they have 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.
At our previous inspection in November 2015 we rated the service as ‘Good’ overall, but ‘Requires Improvement’ in Well–led. At this inspection we have rated the service as ‘Good’ in all areas. There had been changes in the management team since our previous inspection, and people’s feedback about how the home was managed was positive.
The vision of the staff and management team at Farmers Court was to assist people to remain as independent as possible whilst living in their own homes. Staff were enthusiastic and positive about their work in enabling people to remain independent.
People were encouraged and supported by caring and compassionate staff to follow their agreed care plans. Staff were well trained and effectively used their skills and knowledge to develop relationships with people and respond to people’s individual needs.
Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe and protect them from harm. Policies and guidance were accessible to staff to remind them how to raise concerns following the provider’s safeguarding policies. Risks to people had been assessed and risk mitigation plans were in place to instruct staff on how to support people safely.
People had their prescribed medicines available to them. Staff supported some people to take their medicines, and other people were able to manage their own medicines and were encouraged to do so. Staff received training in the safe handling, administering and recording of people’s medicines.
People were involved in planning their own care. Staff read people’s care plans and received an induction and training so that they knew people well. Further training took place to update and refresh staff skills and knowledge.
The registered manager and staff understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and worked within the principles of this.
Health and social care professionals were involved in the planning and delivery of people’s care; staff followed the guidance given by health and social care professionals. People’s agreed care and support was reviewed when required.
People said staff were kind and respectful toward them. People’s feedback on the service was sought by the provider, and feedback was acted upon. People told us they felt they could raise concerns or complaints if they needed to.
The provider and registered manager had quality monitoring processes which included audits and checks on medicines management, care records and staff practices. Where improvement was identified, action was taken.
This inspection took place on 4th November 2015 and was announced. This was to ensure the registered manager and staff were available when we visited, to talk with us about the service.
Farmers Court provides an extra care service of personal care and support to people within a complex of flats. Staff provide care at pre-arranged times and people have access to call bells for staff to respond whenever additional help is required. People have access to communal facilities including a lounge and a restaurant which offers hot and cold meals daily. At the time of our visit the service was providing care and support to 29 people.
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.
People told us they felt safe, and that they could raise concerns with staff at any time. Staff were trained in safeguarding people, and we saw that they understood what action they should take in order to protect people from abuse. Staff were supported in doing so by access to policies and procedures. Systems were used to minimise risks to people’s safety, and staff knew how to support people safely, although risk assessments were not always updated.
People were supported with their medicines by staff who were trained to do so, and had been assessed as competent. Medicines were given in a timely way and as prescribed. Regular audits took place, which helped to ensure medicines were given effectively. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs.
Checks were carried out prior to staff starting work to ensure their suitability to support people. Staff received appropriate training, support and guidance through regular supervision meetings, which helped to give them the skills, knowledge and understanding to meet the needs of people.
Management and staff understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and supported people in line with these principles.
Staff were aware of the need to seek informed consent from people wherever possible, but it was not always reflected in people’s care plans if they had capacity to make their own decisions.
People told us that staff were respectful and treated them with dignity and respect. They also told us that staff supported them to be as independent as possible and respected their right to privacy. People told us they could choose what to eat and drink, and that they were supported to prepare their own meals.
People had access to other health professionals whenever necessary, and we saw that the care and support provided by staff was in line with what had been recommended. People’s care records were written in a way which helped staff to deliver personalised care. People told us they were not always fully involved in deciding how their care and support was delivered, but that they felt able to raise concerns about their support with staff and the manager if they were not happy with it.
People told us they were able to raise any concerns with the registered manager, and that these concerns would be listened to and responded to effectively, and in a timely way. People told us that staff and the management team were responsive and approachable. Systems used to monitor the quality of the support provided in the home, and recommended actions, were clearly documented but they did not always work.
This inspection took place on 4th November 2015 and was announced. This was to ensure the registered manager and staff were available when we visited, to talk with us about the service.
Farmers Court provides an extra care service of personal care and support to people within a complex of flats. Staff provide care at pre-arranged times and people have access to call bells for staff to respond whenever additional help is required. People have access to communal facilities including a lounge and a restaurant which offers hot and cold meals daily. At the time of our visit the service was providing care and support to 29 people.
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.
People told us they felt safe, and that they could raise concerns with staff at any time. Staff were trained in safeguarding people, and we saw that they understood what action they should take in order to protect people from abuse. Staff were supported in doing so by access to policies and procedures. Systems were used to minimise risks to people’s safety, and staff knew how to support people safely, although risk assessments were not always updated.
People were supported with their medicines by staff who were trained to do so, and had been assessed as competent. Medicines were given in a timely way and as prescribed. Regular audits took place, which helped to ensure medicines were given effectively. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs.
Checks were carried out prior to staff starting work to ensure their suitability to support people. Staff received appropriate training, support and guidance through regular supervision meetings, which helped to give them the skills, knowledge and understanding to meet the needs of people.
Management and staff understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and supported people in line with these principles.
Staff were aware of the need to seek informed consent from people wherever possible, but it was not always reflected in people’s care plans if they had capacity to make their own decisions.
People told us that staff were respectful and treated them with dignity and respect. They also told us that staff supported them to be as independent as possible and respected their right to privacy. People told us they could choose what to eat and drink, and that they were supported to prepare their own meals.
People had access to other health professionals whenever necessary, and we saw that the care and support provided by staff was in line with what had been recommended. People’s care records were written in a way which helped staff to deliver personalised care. People told us they were not always fully involved in deciding how their care and support was delivered, but that they felt able to raise concerns about their support with staff and the manager if they were not happy with it.
People told us they were able to raise any concerns with the registered manager, and that these concerns would be listened to and responded to effectively, and in a timely way. People told us that staff and the management team were responsive and approachable. Systems used to monitor the quality of the support provided in the home, and recommended actions, were clearly documented but they did not always work.
We followed up on these areas of concern by undertaking an inspection at Farmers Court on 23 September 2014. During this inspection we spoke with the registered manager, the care team leader, a senior health care assistant, three health care assistants and five people who used the service. Speaking with these people helped answer our five questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led?
Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.
Is the service safe?
We found the provider had made changes since our previous inspection and improvements had been made in all three areas of concern.
We saw that people's care records accurately reflected their care needs. We found people had appropriate risk assessments in place that made sure any risks were managed. We found that people's care records were regularly evaluated and reviewed by senior staff.
Is the service effective?
People told us the care they received met their needs. They told us they had been involved in planning the care they received. One person told us they were, 'Happy with the care' and that it, 'Suits me down to the ground.'
Staff we spoke with had a clear understanding of the needs of the people they supported and what they told us was reflected in people's care plans.
We spoke with staff and found that most staff felt supported by their manager and felt able to raise any issues they had.
Is the service caring?
We spoke with five people who used the service and they were all positive about the service they received. One person told us the staff, 'Were a laugh'. Another person told us they were happy with their care, they said, 'The carers do what they're supposed to.' Another person told us they were, 'Perfectly happy.'
Staff we spoke with were positive about their role as carer and enjoyed supporting people.
Is the service responsive?
We found people were asked for their views about their care and these were acted on. We saw the provider's latest customer survey completed in July 2014.The results of the survey were good. We found that any issues raised, were responded to by the manager.
We found evidence that learning took place from incidents and investigations within the service and appropriate changes were implemented to improve the service.
Is the service well led?
We found the service had an effective quality assurance system in place and any identified actions had led to improvements in the service that people received.
People who used the service and staff told us they were able to speak with the manager and felt able to raise any issues or concerns they had.
Below is a summary of what we found.
Is the service safe?
We inspected this service previously on 03 September 2013 and identified improvements were required in three areas; in supporting workers, in assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision and in the quality of the services' records. We found the provider had made changes since our previous inspection. A new staff management structure had been put in place when the previous care manager left the service in December 2013. A new service team manager was appointed in January 2014 and a new care team leader started in March 2014.
We saw most people's care records reflected their care needs. However we found important information had been left out of two people's care records. For example one person had received recommendations from a health professional that had not been incorporated into their care plans. This meant that some people's care plans were not accurate.
We saw people had risk assessments in place that made sure most risks were managed. However we found some people who were at risk of developing pressure areas had not been assessed. There were no care plans in place to give instructions to staff on how to prevent pressure areas from developing in those people at risk.
We spoke with care staff about how they cared for people who were at risk of developing pressure areas. They were able to tell us how they checked people's skin integrity. A relative of someone who used the service told us care staff let them know if there were any changes to their family member's skin.
We found most people's care records had been recently reviewed by a senior member of staff.
People we spoke with told us they felt safe using the service. One person told us that care staff, 'Check if I've taken my medication. They are on the ball.' Another person told us, 'If I'm not feeling too good I have a panic button I can ring.'
We looked at staff records and found the provider's recruitment practice was safe and thorough.
We have asked the provider to tell us how they will make improvements to ensure that people are cared for safely and that their care plans are accurate and reflect their current needs.
Is the service effective?
People told us the care they received met their needs. When talking about the care staff, one person told us, 'Nothing seems to be too much trouble.' Another person described the care staff as 'very well trained'.
Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the needs of the people they supported. However some things they told us were recorded in people's daily log sheets but not reflected in their care plans. For example, how they cared for people with reduced mobility who may be at risk of developing pressure areas.
We spoke with staff to find out if they felt supported by their manager. Care staff gave us a mixed response. Some staff told us they felt their manager listened to them and they could raise any issues. Some staff told us that they felt managers were too busy to support staff and listen to their concerns.
We have asked the provider to tell us how they will make improvements and meet the requirements of the law in relation to supporting staff.
Is the service caring?
We spoke with eight people who used the service. They told us; 'They're very good, I can rely on them', 'They make individuals feel cared for' and 'Staff are friendly, they do things over and above the call of duty.'
Some people told us they would like staff to do things in a different way. They told us they would raise these issues with staff.
Staff we spoke with were positive about their role as carer and enjoyed supporting people.
Is the service responsive?
We found people were asked for their views about their care. We saw the provider's latest customer quality survey results from April 2014.The responses were mixed. The manager explained that the responses had only recently been received. She told us how she would manage the issues raised in the survey in order to make improvements to the care people received.
We saw that incidents, accidents and complaints had been logged, however the outcome of the issues had not been recorded. This made it difficult to see how issues had been dealt with by the service. We could not identify if improvements had been made to the service or if managers or care staff had learned from the events.
We have asked the provider to tell us how they will make improvements and meet the requirements of the law in relation to monitoring risks to people.
Is the service well led?
We found the service had an internal quality assurance system in place. The provider visited the service at intervals and checked a variety of issues. There was an action plan in place which identified improvements required to be undertaken by the manager. We saw the manager had engaged with the plan and was working towards completing it.
We saw the manager had recently undertaken an audit of people's medical administration record sheets. We saw that the manager had identified where some improvements were required. However we found the results of the audit were not comprehensive because an issue relating to missed medication had not been identified.
People who used the service told us they were able to speak with the manager and felt able to raise any issues or concerns they had. One person told us the new manager had introduced themselves and asked them, 'If there's anything that could be changed.' Another person told us t they had asked the new manager for a change in their call time. They told us, 'Leanne (the manager) sorted it.'
We have asked the provider to tell us how they will make improvements and meet the requirements of the law in relation to their quality assurance systems.
During our visit we observed that staff were polite and asked people's permission before they supported them. We saw people having their lunch, where they were supported appropriately and enjoyed their meal.
People we spoke with who used the service were positive about the care they received. One person told us that they were, 'Very satisfied' and that staff, 'Go out of their way to help.' They told us they 'Couldn't wish for anything better.'
We found that care staff knew how to keep people safe. People who used the service and their relatives told us they felt safe. However some systems within the service designed to identify, assess and manage risks to people's health and welfare, were not used effectively.
Staff told us about their induction and training. Staff told us that they had requested further training and were waiting to receive it.
We found that some records within the service were not maintained accurately and could not be located promptly when required.
We last inspected the service on 15 June 2012 and we found the provider did not have effective systems in place to regularly assess the delivery of people's care and to monitor the quality of service that people who lived at Farmers Court received.
We were told by the provider that systems would be in place by 31 August 2012. Although some systems had been put in place there were still some areas which were ongoing and still in development.
We saw how people who lived at Farmers Court had been involved in asking for their comments on the provision of service. We saw regular meetings had taken place between the provider and the people at Farmers Court. We saw systems, although not completed at the time of our inspection, had been put in place to monitor the care and welfare of people who used the service.
During our visit we saw some of the care plans had been changed to reflect the current care needs and support of people who lived at Farmers Court. We were told by the care manager how they were in the process of reviewing care plans of those people who received care and support from the service.
We carried out an inspection at Farmers Court on 14 and 15 June 2012. The visit was unannounced so that no one living or working in the extra care service knew we were coming.
When we visited we spoke with six people living at Farmers Court and two care staff.
People who lived at Farmers Court told us they had received information about the care and support that could be provided when they first arrived at the service.
We saw that the agency had assessed people's needs and care plans had been devised to describe how people liked to be supported. Risks to people's health and well being had been identified and measures had been put in place to protect people. However, these had not been recently reviewed to identify any change in needs of individuals.
People who use the service told us that the care staff understood what help and support they needed each day. One person told us how care staff came in each morning to help them get up, washed and take their medicines.
They told us they were spoken to with their preferred name and were treated with respect.
We received positive comments about the staff that were providing support to people. These included 'they are very helpful' and 'they are always cheery'.
Staff told us they were happy working at Farmers Court and staff worked well as a team. We were told that training opportunities were available and training had been received to ensure they had sufficient knowledge to meet people's needs.
People who lived at Farmers Court told us they felt comfortable in raising any concerns with staff or the manager if required. However, we found that systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service were not in place. We were told by the manager that although complaints are being dealt with these were not currently being recorded.