Farmhouse Residential Rest Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

A comprehensive assessment was undertaken with people, their relatives and when necessary, an advocate before a person was admitted into the service to ensure their needs could be met. Care plans were drawn up as staff got to know people and when new risks were identified. These care plans were regularly reviewed to ensure they remained current and relevant to the person’s needs.

When it was identified that the provider was unable to meet a person’s needs safely, the appropriate action was taken to find them a more suitable placement. This meant the provider only supported people who they were able to safely and effectively.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider remained up to date with current best practice and ensured care continued to reflect relevant guidance through regular audits and reviews.

The nominated individual explained the night staff wore pyjamas while on duty. This practice aimed to support people living with dementia by helping them to recognise it was nighttime, with the intention that seeing staff dressed for bed would encourage unsettled individuals to return to bed.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s assessed needs and used recognised assessment tools to identify and monitor risks, including those related to nutrition and skin integrity. Staff supported people to meet their nutritional and hydration needs, and care records confirmed people consistently received sufficient food and fluids. Where individuals had specific dietary requirements, such as modified‑texture diets, allergies, or personal preferences, these were clearly detailed in care plans and understood by staff.

Staff had completed training to effectively support people with their individual health and care needs, including training in learning disabilities for those who required this support.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Records of visits from external professionals were kept in people’s care notes, including any advice given or changes to their care. This supported shared working and demonstrated a multi‑agency approach.

Staff had positive and professional relationships with visiting professionals, and feedback was used to support effective partnership working.

The service received weekly visits from the GP surgery, with a healthcare professional and clinician attending on alternate weeks. This ensured health concerns were addressed promptly and supported people’s health and wellbeing.

People’s care plans incorporated a detailed hospital passport. This meant that if a person needed hospital treatment or support from another service, staff unfamiliar with them could easily access vital information to provide safe and effective care. The passport included essential details such as the person’s medical conditions, prescribed medications, and any known allergies.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported to attend health appointments or receive visits from health professional’s dependent on their needs. Care plans highlighted people’s individual specific health care needs, for example, epilepsy and how staff should care and respond to them.

Staff knew people’s food and drink preferences and people’s assessed requirements, such as soft diets or diabetic diets.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

One person told us they did not feel supported well by the service. Although we could see that some steps had been taken to address this person’s concerns and improve their quality of life, more appropriate support had not been sourced. This apparent lack of action had led this person to feel frustrated about their care and support. The provider sent us an action plan following the inspection telling us how they planned to support this person in a more effective way.

People’s care plans were regularly reviewed and monitored. A relative told us they were involved in the monitoring of their relatives care plan on an annual basis; however, we saw care plans were reviewed monthly by a member of the staff team.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff we spoke with had received training in the MCA and knew to ask consent before delivering care. One person told us, “If I don’t want a shower. I tell them and I can have a wash by the sink.” Another person told us, “I am listened too. I tell them I would prefer a shower if offered a bath. Staff know what they are doing.”

The provider was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Comprehensive mental capacity assessments were completed by the provider to ensure people were supported to consent to their care appropriately. Some people were able to consent to their own care, whilst others needed support from relatives and advocates, and the decision made in their best interests.