Church Farm Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Throughout our assessment we identified concerns of the effectiveness of the service, we were not assured needs were assessed accurately due to concerns identified within peoples care records. We found care needs were not always being followed as advised and escalation processes were not clearly recorded within care records. The service worked well with partners to support the needs of people within the environment and meals being provided had good nutritional value. There were snacks provided throughout the environment. We identified gaps in some care records around their consent to care and treatment.

This service scored 58 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Some people we spoke to expressed that upon admission to the service they were asked lots of questions about their needs and preferences. However some people were not assured that their needs were reviewed regularly and we could not evidence this within our assessment.

Staff and leaders told us that they review care plans on a regular basis. However from reviewing peoples care plans there were several inconsistencies that had been failed to be identified from staff or leaders within the service.

We found inconsistences upon reviewing peoples care plans. Some of the care plans would refer to different individuals to whom it belonged to and risk assessments within the same care plan would often contradict the information presented in other areas. This did not assure us which areas within the same care plan most reflected the needs of the individual for staff to follow. The service uses a dependency tool to identify the required staffing levels to meet people’s needs at the service. We found the dependency tool used had inaccuracies in it, so did not fully reflect appropriate staffing levels.

People we spoke to said that the meal quality and choice within the service had improved in the last few months. People told us they could choose from different meal and dessert options. People felt that staff knew their likes and dislikes well.

Kitchen staff told us that people can chose to eat at any time they chose throughout the day. Staff could show us SALT (Speech and Language Therapy) team communications and managers updated peoples weights monthly although during our inspection we found this had not been completed since July 2024. Staff told us that people in the service are asked what they would like to choose off of the menu and could tell us peoples likes and dislikes. On the day of our inspection, we observed 1 member of staff asking a person if they would like their usual for breakfast and could confidently list what they would normally choose to have.

There were people within the service who were pre-diabetic, and their care plans did not accurately reflect this. There was contradictory information recorded within the care plans suggesting normal diet in some areas and then low sugar diets in other areas. We feel that this is not clear to staff which was to be followed. For several people fluid targets were not reached and for other people they were not always offered enough fluids by staff to reach their fluids intake target. Fluid intake targets were not reviewed on an individual basis and instead a generic figure was used across the service. If people’s food intake was being monitored for health reasons, the service could not evidence how much people had eaten.

People we spoke to expressed how they felt there was a good involvement of healthcare professionals within the setting. People told us that they would regularly see a general practitioner (G.P) and the community district nursing team and any concerns they had were escalated in a timely manner. People told us they were kept informed of what was happening and when they would be seen. People also told us that they experienced a thorough assessment following a hospital discharge.

Staff we spoke to could evidence to us that they were aware of peoples needs. Any guidance provided by a healthcare professional was communicated to all staff. 1 example of how this evidenced to us included the kitchen staff having guidance advising them on correct textures of meals for people provided from the SALT team.

A healthcare professional expressed their confidence in the service implementing and following guidance provided to support people within the service.

The service supported staff to have access to relevant guidance provided by healthcare professionals however this was not always reflected within individuals care plans as they were not always updated appropriately and contained several inconsistencies within them.

All people we spoke to told us that the service supported them to do all the activities that they liked to do. 1 individual was a keen drawer and was in the process of drawing a staff member, the staff made sure they had a supply of paper and pencils to enable him to do this. Another individual enjoyed puzzles, and they stated staff helped them complete them. The service also organised multiple activities that involved a variety of animals which was popular amongst people within the service. 1 person enjoyed socialising a lot and told us that the service would take them out in their wheelchair to their local coffee shop. Relatives of people we spoke to expressed that they were encouraged to join in on activities the service provided.

Staff told us that they felt the service provided a variety of activities and could tell us some examples of some that had taken place such as exercises on a weekly basis and singers. The service has a wishing tree within the environment where people can write a wish. Some people who use the service had wished to go to Norwich for shopping and the service was arranging this as a day out.

People's oral hygiene charts were not completed consistently. People's charts showed us that within a 4-week period they had only received support to clean their dentures on 2 occasions and they had not been soaked at all although oral care tasks had been recorded as completed by staff. Another person was recorded as having support with dentures for 3 days, however their care plan does not record that they have dentures. A different individual required support to remove their dentures at night detailed in their care plan, but this task was not reflected within that individuals daily notes completed by staff.

People told us that they felt staff were responsive to their needs and escalated concerns appropriately. Relatives of people told us that there was clear communication of any actions taken if they raised a concern and that this was in a timely manner.

Staff could confidently tell us how they would respond to situations that can arise and monitoring people’s health. Staff showed us they had a good understanding of supporting people, and the expectations and processes involved in doing so.

We could not evidence how people that were advised to follow low sugar diets by healthcare professionals, were encouraged by staff to follow this advice. During our inspection we could not be assured that individuals on a fluid chart where targets were not being met, were being referred to their G.P for review.

People we spoke with felt they were in control of their care needs, and they were always asked how they wanted to be supported, and their consent was gained. This was observed by relatives also.

We spoke to staff, and they expressed how they always gained consent from people within the service prior to undertaking any tasks.

On reviewing peoples care plans mental capacity assessments were not always completed on all decisions to be made if an individual lacked capacity. For example, 1 person care plan was missing a mental capacity assessment on having their photograph taken and another for their consent to care and treatment. Reviewing daily care records there was no recording of staff obtaining consent before carrying out a task.