You are here

Farriess Court Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 14 March 2020

About the service

Farriess Court is registered for 26 beds and is a residential care home, providing personal care and accommodation for adults in one adapted building. Some people were living with dementia or a physical disability. At the time of the inspection there was 19 people using the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The potential risk identified at the last inspection, regarding some radiators not being covered had been addressed. This ensured people were no longer at risk of scalds from exposed radiators. Since our last inspection the local authority had identified improvements that were needed to the maintenance of some areas of the building, such as windows in some bedrooms and communal areas, that did not open. We saw the provider had commenced this work and had an action plan in place to address all areas. We identified other areas that required repair, such as the flooring and walls in the laundry room. The manager added this work to the action plan in place.

We have made a recommendation for the provider to review good practices measures regarding the smoke room; to prevent smoke from cigarettes drifting into smoke free areas.

We saw that risk assessments were in place and identified how risks were to be minimised to keep people safe and overall these were followed by staff. However, we saw that one person’s risk assessment was not always followed regarding the supervision they required when smoking cigarettes. We followed this up with the manager, who told us they would address this with the staff team, to ensure the risks to this person were minimised.

People accessed healthcare services and were supported to keep well. However, we identified that developments in the assessment of people’s oral health care and training for staff in this area may enhance people’s wellbeing. The manager confirmed that she would address this. Staff were provided with training in other areas to develop their skills and knowledge and meet people's needs.

People received the support they needed to take their prescribed medicines on time and in their preferred way. Sufficient staff were available to support people as needed. Recruitment checks were completed before staff commenced employment to ensure they were suitable. People were safeguarded from harm, as staff were trained and understood their role in reporting any concerns to protect people. Control measures were in place to minimise the risk of infections.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People’s capacity was assessed when they were unable to make decisions independently. This was to ensure that decisions were made in their best interests and that they were supported in the least restrictive way. People told us they enjoyed the food and we saw their dietary needs and preferences were met.

People were support by staff who knew them well and understood their preferences and interests. Information was available in an accessible format to aid people’s understanding. People’s care plans were reviewed regularly and included their preferences on how their care should be delivered. People knew how to raise concerns about the service and these were addressed following the provider’s procedure.

People and their visitors knew who the manager was and were confident that the home was managed well. Quality monitoring systems were in place to drive improvement and the provider’s action plan demonstrated that improvements were ongoing. However, the provider’s quality assurance systems had not been effective in identifying all areas that required improvement.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (publ

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 14 March 2020

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 14 March 2020

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 March 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 March 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 14 March 2020

The service was not well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.