Archived: Farriess Court

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

At our inspection we gathered evidence that helped answer our five questions.

Is the service safe?

Support plans reflected people's needs and staff understood how to support people individual needs in line with their support plans. Support plans were written in an individual way ensuring people received personalised care from staff. There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies such as individual evacuation plans in case of a serious event such as a fire.

Equipment in the home was well maintained and serviced regularly. Refurbishment was taking place. There were areas that looked tired and worn but the provider was aware of these.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed, and they and their representatives were involved in the agreement of their plans of care. The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received care appropriate to their needs. We saw where people were supported by visiting doctors, specialists and district nurses on a regular basis.

Is the service caring?

We saw that people were treated with respect and dignity by staff.

Is the service responsive?

People had their needs assessed before moving to the service. We also saw that they were reviewed regularly and where people's needs changed they were reviewed more frequently.

Is the service well-led?

Quality assurance systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations Staff understood the standard of care expected of them by the provider. The manager spent time speaking with people who used the service on a daily basis to ensure any concerns were dealt with promptly. Staff told us they were clear about their role and responsibility.

People told us they liked the staff and said they were looked after. One person said 'The care is very good' and another told us 'I'm happy here'.

Most people we spoke with told us they enjoyed their meals and we saw portion sizes were satisfactory. One person confirmed there were enough drinks available between meals and told us 'There's always plenty of cups of tea' and another described the meals as very good and told us 'The cook always asks what you want to eat'.

We saw risk assessments were not completed in a timely manner for all people; for example, in one file we looked at, there were no risk assessments completed since admission. This meant there was the potential for people's care needs to be missed and their safety compromised.

We found improvements had been made to the monitoring of cleanliness and infection control procedure since our previous visit in August 2013.

We found that the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements when considering people's capacity to make decisions.

We found that care records were comprehensive and contained clear guidance for staff as to the care and treatment preferences of the person using the service.

We found that people could not be assured that they were protected from the risks associated with the unsafe management of medicines.

Staff told us they felt supported by the provider and management team at the home. We found that staff had access to regular supervision and training.

We found that the providers systems for assessing, monitoring and managing risk at the home were not implemented in line with the providers' policy. We found that identified risks were not always acted upon.

We found that the provider had put systems in place to ensure that people's privacy and dignity was respected. We saw evidence of peoples views being sought and their concerns acted upon.

We found that the provider had put systems and processes in place to ensure that risks to peoples' health and wellbeing were identified and managed. This included systems to ensure staff were recruited safely and that they receive appropriate training, supervision and appraisal.