You are here

Boars Tye Farm Residential Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 13 March 2020

About the service

Boars Tye Farm Residential Home is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care for up to 27 people in one adapted building, some of whom may be living with dementia. There were 20 people living at the service at the time of our inspection.

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

Risks to people’s health and welfare were in most cases, identified and managed to minimise the risk of them coming to harm. However, individualised emergency evacuation assessments which identified people’s specific needs and the level of assistance they needed to safely evacuate the premises in the event of a fire, had been replaced with a ‘grab sheet.’ This did not contain the same level of detail to guide staff on what to do in the event of an emergency.

We have made recommendation about consulting with the fire service regarding this practice.

People and relatives’ feedback about the quality of the food was good. Catering staff had good knowledge of people’s dietary needs, however the dining experience needed to improve to ensure people received their meals in a timely manner, and ensure mealtimes were a sociable and pleasurable experience.

We recommend the provider reviews the dining arrangements.

Detailed care plans were in place to guide staff on how to meet people’s care and health needs, however these needed more detailed guidance for staff on how to support people when their behaviour became challenging, due to anxiety and distress.

There were enough competent staff on duty with the right skills and mix to support the needs of people using the service. Staff had received training that gave them the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles and provide effective care.

The provider had good systems in place, followed by staff to ensure safe and proper use of medicines. The service recognised where people were able to manage their own medicines and supported them to do this. Staff were aware of safeguarding processes to keep people safe. Staff were aware of their responsibility to raise concerns and report incidents. When things had gone wrong, systems were in place to ensure these were investigated and lessons learned were shared with staff.

The premises have been adapted to meet the needs of people living there. Routine safety checks were in place ensuring the premises were homely, and safe. The service was clean and tidy with no unpleasant odours. Staff had access to and understood policies and procedures for the prevention and control of infection and were observed putting these into practice.

People were supported to access healthcare professionals and specialist teams to ensure they received appropriate healthcare and treatment.

We received positive feedback from people and their relatives about staff. People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion. Staff treated people with dignity and respect

Staff understood obtaining peoples consent before providing care. We saw good evidence to reflect the service was working within the principles of the MCA, and whether any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty had the appropriate legal authority and were being met.

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, and their relatives told us they are able to express their views and be involved in making decisions about their care.

We received mixed opinions from people and their relatives about activities in the service to keep people stimulated and occupied. Although the service had engaged with the local community, such as village halls to access coffee mornings and schools to interact with children, further work was needed to ensure people had meaningful engagement, occupation and access to therapeutic activities.

Complaints raised about this service were listened and responded too. The service had an open policy and encouraged people to discuss concerns in an open and transparent way.

The service had two staff who were designated palliative care ambassadors. These staff had done some exemplary work to promote good quality end of life care. They worked well in conjunction with relatives and the local hospice to ensure people had a pain free, comfortable and dignified death.

There was a positive culture in the service. Staff were encouraged to be innovative and share their ideas to help improve the service. Staff received the support they needed for their professional development and so they knew what was expected of them.

The provider had good governance systems in place which were used effectively to assess and monitor the service. The management team worked well together and other professionals to understand where and what improvements were needed to drive improvements and provide high quality care.

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

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published August 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 13 March 2020

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 13 March 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 13 March 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 13 March 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Well-led

Good

Updated 13 March 2020

The service was well led.

Details are in our safe findings below.