Farriess Court

Updated 14 March 2020

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

The inspection team consisted of two inspectors.

Service and service type:

Farriess Court is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission at the time of the inspection. This means that the provider is legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided. An acting manager was in post and was overseeing the management of the home until a new manager was recruited.

Notice of inspection:

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before inspection:

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about. We contacted the local authority who commission services from the provider. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection:

We spoke with five people who used the service and two people’s visitors to ask about their experience of the care provided. We also observed the support people received within the communal areas of the home, including the support people received to take their medicine. We spoke with four members of staff including the manager, senior care staff and care staff. We reviewed a range of records. This included accident and incident records, care records and medicine records and how the provider sought feedback from people to drive improvement.

After the inspection;

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We looked at staff training records, recruitment records, a variety of audits and evidence to demonstrate they were actively seeking to recruit a registered manager.

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 (published 31 January 2019) and there was one breach of regulation. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

The service remains rated requires improvement. This service has been rated requires improvement for the last two consecutive inspections.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvement. Please see the safe, effective and well led key question sections of this full report.

Follow up

We will meet with the provider following this report being published to discuss how they will make changes to ensure they improve their rating to at least good. We will work with the local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.