Church Farm Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We found through the assessment that the service was very responsive to areas we noted required improvement. People’s care was delivered in a person-centred way, The staff worked well with health care professionals and were responsive in putting referrals through appropriately. Information met the Accessible information standards (AIS) and people felt listened too. People who were at more risk of facing inequality, the service supported to ensure they still received the care and support as needed.

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.

All the people in the service that we spoke with, and their relatives felt they were supported with how they wanted to be supported, and they did not feel they were rushed with their care needs.

Speaking to staff they expressed how they aimed to deliver person-centred care and through having conversations, some of the examples that they used evidenced to us that care was unique to that individual, however this was due to staff knowledge of individuals and not reflective in their care plans so does not assure us how this would still be delivered with new staff or agency staff within the service.

When we were on site, we observed staff supporting people on an individual basis and asking them what they would like and giving them different choices. People were carrying out their own individual activities within the setting and staff made sure they had access to these resources.

People and relatives expressed how the service was good at arranging dentist appointments, Chiropody appointments or other appointments that are needed. People in the service expressed they saw the nurse on a regular basis and could state which day they came into the service.

Staff told us their process in ensuring visits were carried out and the action that they take if it doesn’t happen to ensure it is reported and acted on promptly.

We spoke to a health professional who visits the service frequently and she expressed she felt good care was delivered at Church Farm.

We reviewed some care plans and found that they lacked basic information. They recorded that referrals were carried out, but no dates to know when they were referred advise was recorded in peoples care records from healthcare professionals but there was no date of when the advice was given so we could not be assured how accurate and up to date the information was.

Most of the people and relatives had no complaints about the service. 1 individual had raised a concern, and the service were addressing the issue. Everyone that we spoke with said if they did have a concern then they would address it with the registered manager or deputy manager, but some people were not aware of the complaint’s procedure.

Staff had a good knowledge of complaints and what they would be able to resolve themselves and things they would need to escalate to management to be resolved.

We reviewed the services complaints procedure, and it met the accessible information standards. It was clear with pictures aids to support people. The service had a complaints tracker and completed a monthly analysis of them. They had a clear oversight of the complaints within the service.

People felt they were listened to and 1 person we spoke with expressed that they had raised concerns to the staff, and it was evidenced these concerns had been handed over between staff shifts to address them. Some people and relatives we spoke with explained that they are asked to review the care plans when they are updated

Staff explained how they ensure they listen to the people they support and make sure they are happy with the support they have received.

Reviewing peoples care records we could see that people were listened to. 1 individual did not want to follow the guidance they were given from a healthcare professional regarding their risk of eating and drinking normal foods. Their care plan did reflect their needs and recorded clearly how staff had to still offer but respect the individuals wishes and there was an MCA around this decision also. The service offered out surveys to ask for people’s feedback, which was good practice, however we noted where people had given feedback, there was no evidence of this being actioned and communicated to the individual.

People and relatives we spoke with all felt they saw a healthcare professional when it was required, and they raised no concerns.

Staff told us they were confident in putting referrals through and ringing the district nurses if it was required or the GP. They communicated well and if the nurse didn’t come out and see an individual they would ring up and chase the following day.

Feedback we received from healthcare professionals evidenced that the service was prompt in referring people when it was needed. If someone had a wound that needed dressing and changing, they were responsive in informing them.

The staff informed us how their system notifies them when a visit was due to be taken so they can easily be notified and chase the visit up if it is required.

The people and relatives we spoke with all expressed how they were supported by the staff to continue to live a life they wanted to live. One individual who was hard of hearing, was supported with a white board to help them communicate with the staff.

People who were unable to leave the service due to their health concerns, staff ensured that their religious beliefs were still acted on. They arranged for a priest to come in once a month for 1 person. 1 individual use to pray every night and he was given the privacy to do this and on occasions 1 staff member use to join him if he was on shift.

Care plans were detailed with the barriers that individuals may face and how they were to be supported by the staff to help overcome these.

Some people and their families said this was discussed and their views and wishes were recorded and are actively reviewed as part of the care review

Speaking to staff they knew the importance of the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (RESPECT) form and how it always had to be with the individual even on days out. They could tell us what the details were recorded on the form.

We reviewed care plans and noted not all end-of-life wishes were recorded within peoples care records when they would have been appropriate, and they didn’t record if an individual followed a specific religion or culture.