Housing & Care 21 - Farmers Court was rated Good across all five key questions at this April 2018 announced inspection, improving on the previous Requires Improvement in Well-led. The service demonstrated strong person-centred care, robust safeguarding and medicines management, effective staffing, and a well-embedded quality assurance culture.
Strengths
· People felt safe and staff responded promptly to calls and emergencies, including pendant alarm responses
· Sufficient permanent staff employed with no need for agency staff; management and deputy covered gaps
· Staff received regular safeguarding training and were confident raising concerns with management
· Robust medicines management with trained staff, MAR records, and competency checks
· Personalised, up-to-date risk assessments accessible to all staff
Farmers Court, an extra care service supporting 29 people, was rated Good overall following a November 2015 announced inspection, with four key questions rated Good. The Well-Led domain required improvement due to quality assurance systems failing to identify out-of-date risk assessments and care records not reflecting people's mental capacity status.
Concerns (5)
moderateRecord keeping: “we found risk assessments were not always up to date... one person's care plan review there were concerns about their mobility. This information had not been updated in their care plan”
moderateConsent / capacity: “Care records did not clearly indicate whether or not people had capacity to make their own decisions.”
moderateGovernance: “These systems did not always work effectively, as for example, they had not identified that some risk assessments were not up to date.”
moderateCare planning: “Risk assessments were not always clear. They did not always record the outcome of the assessment, making it difficult to see what measures should be in place.”
minorPerson-centred care: “People told us they were not always fully involved in deciding how their care and support was delivered.”
Strengths
· Staff were trained in safeguarding and understood procedures for reporting and escalating concerns
· Medicines were administered safely, with weekly audits, competency assessments, and timely error investigation
· Staff received regular supervision, induction training, and ongoing development opportunities
· People were treated with dignity, respect, and kindness; staff promoted independence and privacy
· Care records were personalised, including people's history, preferences, goals and objectives