You are here

Farriess Court Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 2 February 2019

Farriess Court had 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.

Farriess Court was previously inspected by the Care Quality Commission on 6 July 2017. We found two breaches of the regulations. We asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the premises to promote people’s safety and to ensure effective governance of the service. The overall rating for the service was requires improvement. We found some improvements had been made, however further improvements are required.

This is the second time the service has been rated Requires Improvement.

People were exposed to potential risk as some radiators and other heating devices used to heat some rooms within the service were not covered to protect people from coming into contact with hot temperature surfaces.

People told us they felt safe at Farriess Court. Individual risk assessments identified potential risks to people. Staff were knowledgeable about keeping people safe, which included their awareness of safeguarding and the implementation of the personalised risk assessments. People were supported by staff that had been recruited and had checks undertaken to ensure they were suitable for their role. People’s medicine was managed safely.

We found improvements could be made for the benefit of people living with dementia, memory loss or confusion by considering how the décor and signage within the service could be developed, to improve people's well-being consistent with good practice guidance. We have recommended that all staff undertake training in dementia awareness to enable them to better understand and support those living with dementia.

People’s needs were assessed to ensure staff could provide the support required. People’s needs were met by staff that had the skills to provide safe care and who were regularly supervised and had their competency assessed.

People’s health care needs were monitored, and people worked in partnership with staff to monitor their health. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrict way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People’s dietary needs were met and people spoke positively about the food.

People spoke positively about the care and approach of staff towards them. Staff’s knowledge and awareness of people meant they had developed positive relationships. We observed positive interactions with people, with staff providing opportunities for people to take part in activities and by spending time engaging in conversation.

People’s records were electronically stored and were used by staff to update people’s records throughout the day, providing a clear audit trail of the care provided and staff’s observations as to people’s wellbeing. People’s preferences about their care had been sought and recorded to ensure staff supported people consistent with their wishes and expectations.

People were confident in raising concerns, we found concerns and complaints had been investigated and any necessary actions taken. However, information about complaints and other key information such as advocacy services and safeguarding were not displayed where they could be easily accessed and clearly visible.

The provider had not addressed all the areas identified within the previous inspection report for improvement. A range of audits had been introduced to monitor the quality of the service, however these had not identified the potential risk to people of hot surface temperatures of radiators. The provider’s oversight of the registered manager through formal supervision was n

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 2 February 2019

The service was not consistently safe.

Potential environmental risks had not been identified, which placed people at risk. Personalised risk assessments were in place and were adhered to by staff to promote people’s safety and well-being.

People were safeguarded from abuse as robust systems and processes were in place, which were understood and adhered too by all staff.

A robust system of staff recruitment was in place to ensure people were supported by suitable staff and that there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs.

People's needs with regards to their medicine were identified within their care plans and medicine management systems were robust.

Effective

Good

Updated 2 February 2019

The service was effective.

People’s needs were assessed to ensure the service could meet their needs.

Improvements had been made to the environment to better meet people’s personal care needs through the installation of a refitted assistive bathroom. The environment could be further developed with consideration to good practice guidance to better meet the needs of those living with dementia.

Staff supported people in the monitoring and promotion of their health, which included ensuring people had sufficient to eat and drink. People had regular access to health care professionals.

Staff were supported through on-going supervision and had their competency assessed. Staff accessed training relevant to the promotion of people’s health and welfare. We made a recommendation for all staff to receive training in dementia awareness.

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Caring

Good

Updated 2 February 2019

The service was caring.

People, family members and visitors spoke positively of the care provided, which included the attitude and approach of staff.

We observed positive interactions between people and staff and saw a majority of people’s choices and wishes were promoted and respected.

People’s dignity and privacy was recognised and met by staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 2 February 2019

The service was responsive.

People and family members worked with staff to develop their care plans to ensure they received the support and care they required.

People were supported to maintain contact with family and friends. People had the opportunity to take part in activities held within the service.

People were aware of how to raise a concern or make a complaint. Complaints and concerns were documented and investigated by the registered manager.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 2 February 2019

The service was not consistently well-led.

Improvements to the system for monitoring the quality of the service had been made by the provider. However, the audits had failed to identify some areas of potential risk to people.

The provider had not actioned all the areas for improvement identified within the Care Quality Commissions previous inspection report.

People’s views about the service were regularly sought through surveys, a majority of surveys reflected people’s satisfaction with the service. However, the analysis of their views and actions the provider planned to take to address any comments were not shared.

Staff spoke positively of the support provided by the management team. People we spoke with told us the registered manager was approachable.