Castle Farm Care Home

Updated 18 January 2019

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection site visit took place on 15 December 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service. This included notifications the home had sent us. A notification is the means by which providers tell us important information that affects the running of the service and the care people receive.

We used the information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We spoke with eight people who used the service and four relatives. We spoke with two team leaders, three care assistants and the chef manager. We received feedback from two health and social care professionals who work with the service.

We spoke with the registered manager and the head of care. We reviewed six people’s care files, four medicine administration records, policies, risk assessments, health and safety records, consent to care and quality audits. We looked at three staff files, the recruitment process, complaints, training and supervision records.

We walked around the building and observed care practice and interactions between staff and people who live there. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) at meal times. SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Updated 18 January 2019

The inspection took place on 15 December 2018 and was unannounced.

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

Castle Farm Care Home is registered to accommodate 22 older people. The home is split over two floors with the first floor having access via stairs or a lift. On the ground floor there is a large lounge, known as the parlour, conservatory and a separate dining room. There was level access to the outside patio area at the rear. There were 14 people living at the home at the time of inspection.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Staff had received an induction and continual learning that enabled them to carry out their role effectively. Staff received regular supervision and felt supported, appreciated and confident in their work. People and their relatives had been involved in assessments of care needs and had their choices and wishes respected including access to healthcare when required. The service worked well with professionals such as doctors, nurses and social workers. However, the home did not always meet the requirements of the MCA. We have made a recommendation about the assessment of capacity and recording of best interest decisions.

People were protected from avoidable harm as staff received training and understood how to recognise signs of abuse. Staff told us who they would report this to both internally and externally. Staffing levels were sufficient to provide safe care and recruitment checks had ensured staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. When people were at risk staff had access to assessments and understood the actions needed to minimise avoidable harm. Medicines were administered and managed safely by trained and competent staff.

Staff were clear on their responsibilities with regards to infection prevention and control and this contributed to keeping people safe. Accident and incidents were recorded and analysed. Lessons learnt were shared with staff by the electronic care planning handset, handovers or during monthly meetings.

People had their eating and drinking needs understood and were being met. People told us they enjoyed the food and thought the variety and quantity was good.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People, their relatives and professionals described the staff as caring, kind and approachable. People had their dignity, privacy and independence respected.

People had their care needs met by staff who were knowledgeable about how they were able to communicate their needs. Their life histories were detailed and relatives had been consulted. The home had an effective complaints process and people were aware of it and knew how to make a complaint. The home actively encouraged feedback from people, their relatives and professionals. People’s end of life needs were included in their care and support plans. Feedback received by the service showed that end of life care provided was of a good standard. Activities were provided and these included staff, people and their relatives. Individual activities were provided for those that preferred them.

Relatives and professionals had confidence in the service. The home had an open and positive culture that encouraged the involvement of everyone. Leadership was visible within the home. Staff spoke positively about the management team and felt supported. There were effective quality assurance and auditing processes in place and they contributed to service improvements. Action plans were carried out and lessons learnt. The registered manager actively sought to work in partnership with other organisations to improve outcomes for people using the service. The service understood their legal responsibilities for reporting and sharing information with other services.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.