Church Farm Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

People were protected from the risk of harm and abuse, staff understood how and who to report concerns to. People were involved with managing their care, including risks and were supported by enough competent and trained staff.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People told us they felt safe living at Church Farm Care Home. One person said, “Yes, I feel very safe here, the staff all work their butts off, they do all they can for you.” Another person told us, “Staff make you feel safe”. People we spoke with were clear about what they would do if they did have concerns about their safety, who they would talk to and their expectation of how the registered manager would deal with any concerns. One person said, “I have no worries but would say if I did.”

The manager was clear about their safeguarding responsibilities. Statutory notifications had been submitted to Care Quality Commission (CQC) and the local authority safeguarding team were alerted to any potential safeguarding incidents. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding processes and when to escalate incidents. One staff member said, “I do all the Bupa training, safeguarding is about us all doing it. I would always report to the manager, but if needed I would go outside to CQC and social services. We need to tell families and listen to what people are telling us. I ask advice if not sure”.

Effective systems were in place to manage safeguarding risks. The provider had escalated incidents to relevant local authorities and CQC when needed. Safeguarding processes had ensured allegations were managed safely.

People were involved in the managing of risk. One person told us, “I can normally get around, but they come with me now because I was poorly.” Another said, “I have complicated health; they help me with that.” People and staff confirmed care plans including risk assessments are reviewed with the person and or their representative monthly and changes made where needs of wishes change.

The registered manager and deputy manager demonstrated detailed knowledge of the needs and preferences of people living at Church Farm Care Home. Management ensured risks to people were regularly reviewed, and guidance to staff updated if needed. Staff were knowledgeable about risks to the people they supported. For example, some people required support to manage their own health conditions. Staff spoke confidently and accurately about the support people needed to manage their diabetes and other health conditions .

People were supported to take risks balancing their safety and their wishes. People's capacity had been considered when such choices had been made and their right to take informed risks was respected. Managers and staff shared a positive, person-centred approach to the management of risk. We observed staff carefully listening to people and offering gentle guidance when appropriate. For example, a person got up from their chair and started to walk away without their stick, a staff member noticed, quietly handed them the stick and the person carried on with their day.

Risk assessments were detailed, person centred and provided clear guidance for staff. Processes were in place to record and audit incidents which led to the identification of trends, actions were put in place to mitigate the risks. For example, A person having falls was referred and equipment put in place to reduce the risk but maintain the person’s independence.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People told us there were enough staff and they came in a reasonable time when called. People felt confident staff would listen to them and were trained to carry out their role.

Managers and staff described a clear induction and training process. The registered manager had oversight of staff training and compliance. Staff we spoke to were positive about the training and support they received from the provider. They knew where to find information and how to seek further guidance if needed.

We observed there were enough staff and they were engaging with people in a positive and friendly way. We saw staff taking time to sit with people and hold conversations, staff seemed attentive to people's needs.

Recruitment processes were in place and robust. Checks were carried out as required and these included police and criminal records checks, right to work checks and references were obtained and verified. Training records showed staff complete a wide range of core training, including Safeguarding, First Aid, Equality and Diversity, Health and Safety, Manual Handling etc. More specific training, tailored to the particular needs of those at the home, was also provided. For example, training in diabetes, learning disability and dementia.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.