We carried out a review of the data available to us about Ford House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Ford House, you can give feedback on this service.
of whom live with dementia. There were 24 people living at the service when we visited.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Staff made sure that people were protected against the transmission of infection from visitors by scheduling visits, limiting areas that visitors could access and being available to escort visitors.
Staff put appropriate actions into place to make sure people were admitted safely into the service.
Staff had enough personal protective equipment, such as masks, gloves and aprons, and had supported people so that they also understood the need for this.
Regular COVID-19 testing was carried out to make sure people and staff were safe.
Staff had increased cleaning of frequently touched surfaces to reduce the risk of transmission of infection.
The provider made sure staff and the registered manager received enough support during the pandemic and when additional staff were needed.
There was COVID-19 specific policies and plans, which meant staff were guided to take appropriate actions to reduce the risk of transmission.
This unannounced inspection took place on 7 September 2017.
At the last comprehensive inspection on 19 and 26 July 2016, we found there was a breach of two regulations. We undertook a focussed inspection on 21 March 2017 where we found that improvements had been made in line with their action plan and the breaches had been met.
During this inspection we found that improvements have been maintained and further improvements have been made to the overall quality of the service
There was a registered manager in post at the time of this inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Although care plans were brief, staff knew how to meet people’s current needs. Staff were trained, supported and supervised to do their job. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.
Risk assessments provided information for staff about how to manage risks to people. Accidents and incidents were being reviewed to reduce the risk of any reoccurrence.
People received their prescribed medicines in a timely manner and medicines were stored and disposed of in a safe way.
The provider had a recruitment process in place and staff were only employed within the service after all essential safety checks had been satisfactorily completed. Procedures were in place to keep people safe and staff were knowledgeable about reporting any incident of harm. People were looked after by enough staff to support them with their individual needs.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. The provider was acting in accordance with the requirements of the MCA including the DoLS. The provider was able to demonstrate how they supported people to make decisions about their care. Where people were unable to do so, there were records showing that decisions were being taken in their best interests. DoLS applications had been submitted to the appropriate authority. This meant that people did not have restrictions placed on them without the correct procedures being followed.
People were provided with a varied choice of meals. When necessary, people were given any extra help they needed to make sure that they had enough to eat and drink to keep them healthy.
Staff referred people appropriately to healthcare professionals.
Audits were regularly carried out to assess what improvements were needed to improve the quality of the care people received. Action plans had been put in place as needed.
After the comprehensive inspection in July 2016, the provider wrote and told us what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breaches. We undertook a focused inspection on 21 March 2017 to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements.
This report only covers our findings in relation to these topics. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Ford House’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Ford House is located on the main road in Eaton Ford, within walking distance of the town centre of St Neots. The original building is over 500 years old and has had a number of extensions since its conversion to a care home. The home provides accommodation for up to 46 people who require nursing and personal care. There were 37 people in residence on the day we visited.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the home is run. At the time of our visit, the registered manager was on leave. The provider’s nominated representative was the member of staff in charge of the home on that day.
At this focused inspection on 21 March 2017 we found that the provider had followed their plan, which they had told us would be fully completed by 31 December 2016, and legal requirements had been met.
People, their relatives and staff were satisfied that the provider had taken action to ensure that there was a sufficient number of staff on duty to meet the needs of the people who lived at the home.
The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which apply to care services. People’s capacity to make decisions for themselves had been satisfactorily assessed. We found that staff had received additional training. Staff demonstrated sufficient knowledge and understanding of the principles of the MCA and DoLS to ensure that the rights of people who did not have capacity to make decisions for themselves would be protected.
Although we found that improvements had been made we have not revised the rating for the two key questions: to improve the rating to 'Good' would require a longer term track record of consistently monitoring the quality of the service and delivery of high quality care.
We will review our ratings at the next comprehensive inspection.
This comprehensive inspection took place on 19 and 26 July 2016 and was unannounced. There were 41 people living at the home when we visited.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the home is run. The registered manager had been in post for four years.
People received their prescribed medicines, which were managed safely. There were recruitment procedures in place to ensure as far as possible that only staff suitable to work in this environment were employed.
Staff had undergone training and were competent to recognise and report any incidents of harm. Potential risks to people and to their health were assessed, recorded and managed so that people were kept as safe as possible.
There was not a sufficient number of staff effectively deployed to ensure that people were safe and their assessed needs were met in a timely manner. Staff had undertaken a range of training courses so that they were equipped to do their job.
The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which apply to care services. People’s capacity to make decisions for themselves had not been satisfactorily assessed. Staff did not demonstrate sufficient knowledge and understanding of the principles of the MCA and DoLS to ensure that the rights people who did not have capacity to make decisions for themselves would be protected.
People were supported to maintain good health and their healthcare needs were met by the involvement of a range of healthcare professionals. People were given sufficient amounts of food and drink and the nutritional needs of people who required special diets were met.
There were some warm and caring interactions between the staff and the people they were supporting. People and their relatives had mixed views about the quality of the care that people were given. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity. People were given opportunities to make choices in some aspects of their lives and visitors were welcomed to the home at any time. People’s personal information was not always kept securely, which meant that confidentiality was not always maintained.
Care records included care plans which gave staff guidance on how to meet people’s assessed needs. Staff were not always aware of the information in the care plans and did not always follow the guidance. People and their relatives knew how to complain and complaints were responded to in a timely manner. Some activities and entertainments were provided. Some people, especially those who remained in their rooms, were not always getting the stimulation and relief from isolation that they needed.
People and their relatives were encouraged to share their views about the service being provided to them in a number of ways. Staff were also given opportunities to share their views about ways in which the service could continue to improve. The quality of the service being provided was checked by a range of audits that were carried out. These audits had not identified or addressed the issues we found.
The provider had not notified CQC about the outcome of an application to deprive a person of their liberty, which is required by law.
We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
This unannounced inspection took place on 06 and 09 October 2014. The previous inspection was undertaken on 10 July 2014 and we found that the regulations were being met.
Ford House provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 46 people some of which have nursing needs. There were 41 people living at the home when we visited.
During the inspection we spoke to five people who lived in the home, two relatives, four staff and the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People told us they felt safe living at the home, that staff were usually kind and compassionate and that the care they received was usually good. People told us that they enjoyed the food and always had enough to eat and drink. People were supported to see health care professionals such as GPs and district nurses when needed.
People told us that there were usually enough staff on duty to meet their needs but that occasionally they had to wait far too long for assistance. They also told us that they would like it if staff had more time to sit and talk with them.
People confirmed and records showed that people received their medication as prescribed.
Staff were aware of and acted on the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which sets out what actions staff must take to ensure they uphold people’s human rights.
Care plans were in place but these did not always contain the information that staff required in order to meet people’s needs and people were not always involved with the development and reviews of their care plans. Risk assessments were in place which told staff what action to take to reduce risks to people.
The provider had ensured that the right people were working in the home by following a thorough procedure when recruiting new staff and dealing with any disciplinary issues appropriately. Staff received training during their induction to ensure they had the skills and knowledge they needed however this could be improved by ensuring that staff received regular updates to their training in a timely manner.
Staff attended team meetings and support sessions with their line manager where they could discuss any concerns. Staff knew how to reduce the risk of people suffering abuse and what to do it they thought someone was at risk.
There was a complaints procedure in place and people felt that they could discuss any concerns with the manager and that these concerns would be dealt with appropriately.
There were effective processes in place to audit the safety and quality of the service being provided and make continual improvements however this could be improved to include assessing the wound care charts to ensure dressings are being assessed or applied as stated.
' Is the service safe?
' Is the service effective?
' Is the service caring?
' Is the service responsive?
' Is the service well led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. If you would like to see the evidence that supports the summary, please read the full report.
We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. Some of the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not all able to tell us about their experiences. However, we observed the care being provided and spoke with five people who lived at the home and two people's relatives. We also spoke with seven staff including two nurses. We looked at staff training records, the provider's quality assurance audits and four people's care records.
Below is a summary of what we found.
Is the service safe?
We found that appropriate arrangements were in place in relation to obtaining, recording, storage, administration and disposal of medicines.
Care was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare. Assessments had been carried out to ensure care could be provided safely and care plans provided guidance to staff on how to deliver care to each person effectively.
Is the service effective?
People told us that they were happy living at the home, that their needs were met in the way they wanted and they liked the staff. We found that people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.
People's records were up to date and accurately maintained. This reduced the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment.
Is the service caring?
The people and relatives we spoke with made very positive comments about the service provided. One person said, 'Good care, good food what else could I ask for?'
People told us that the care they received from this service met their needs. One person said, 'The carers are really good, they help me to get up and dressed and go to bed when I want and get up when I want.' Another person's relative told us, 'The staff are very caring and speak properly to my [family member].'
We saw that staff interactions with people were respectful, caring and kind in their approach. People told us this was always the case.
Is the service responsive?
People's needs were regularly re-assessed and their care records updated to show the changes to their needs. Care plans gave staff guidance on the ways in which each person preferred their needs to be met.
Staff received appropriate training and support, including attendance at one to one and group meetings. This meant that people were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.
Is the service well-led?
A registered manager was in post at the service. The staff we spoke with told us the manager was approachable and that they felt able to talk with her. People and their relatives told us that they felt confident raising issues with the manager and felt that she did respond to issues raised.
The provider had a comprehensive quality assurance system in place to audit and monitor the quality of the service provided. This included seeking feedback from people and their relatives formally through surveys and meetings, and more informally on a day to day basis.
There were systems in place to audit the quality of the service and to report and monitor various aspects of the service including accidents, the environment and the care provided to people. This meant that the service was able to learn from adverse events and take action to make improvements when necessary.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. We saw that there were proper policies and procedures in relation to the MCA and DoLS to ensure that people who could not make decisions for themselves were protected.
During our planning for this inspection we identified that the provider was not registered to provide the regulated activity 'treatment for disease, disorder or injury' at this home. However, we found that staff were carrying out tasks connected to this. We are of the opinion that this was an oversight at the time of the provider's registration and have asked them to apply to the Care Quality Commission to add this regulated activity as soon as possible.
We found that the provider was compliant with the regulations in all the areas we assessed. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
During this inspection we found that although some improvements had been made to the care plans and records for two people there was evidence that the home was not compliant with the warning notice. We found that the records for one person who we had looked at during the previous inspection still did not accurately reflect the care he was receiving. This could place the person at risk of receiving care or treatment that was inappropriate or unsafe.
We looked at the care records for three people and found that they were still not an accurate reflection of the care they had received.
We looked at a number of records, some of which were not adequately completed.
We could see from the evidence that staff were now receiving appropriate support and training which enabled them to carry out their roles effectively.
This inspection, on 08 October 2012, was to check compliance with three of the Warning Notices as the date for compliance had passed. We found that improvements had been made with regard to these and that the home was compliant in those areas. We will return to check on compliance with the fourth Warning Notice once the date that we gave for compliance has passed.
The manager named in this report is no longer working at the home.
We carried out this inspection, on 06 September 2012, to monitor improvements with the compliance actions. We will be returning to monitor compliance with the warning notices.
During this inspection we spoke with five people who lived in the home and with three relatives visiting the home. We also spent time observing the care provided to people by the staff team.
We spoke with three people about the way in which they felt that staff treated them. They all said that they had noticed improvements in the last few weeks. They said that staff treated them with respect and dignity. One said, "Staff treat me with respect by asking me if things suit me and things like that". People told us that staff now answered their call bells more quickly than they had in the past.
We observed staff speaking with people in a kind and calm way. They spent time explaining to people what they were going to do prior to assisting them with care. We noted that call bells were not constantly ringing and were answered promptly.
Improvements had been made to the management of medicines so that risks to people had been reduced. Improvements had also been made with regard to the training provided to staff and their understanding about safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse.
We looked around the home and saw the improvements that had been made to the accommodation. These included the purchase of new beds and mobility equipment as well as new carpets and some redecoration.
We spoke with two relatives who said that they were not involved in reviews of care for their relative, nor were they aware of what was in their care plan. One relative told us that they had confidence in the staff being able to meet their relative's needs. Another said that the manager had taken appropriate action when they had made a complaint.
One person told us, 'I get bored to death here'.staff are always busy and don't seem to have time to stop and have a proper conversation with me.' Another person told us that they often had to wait to get up in the morning and would prefer to get up earlier. People spoke positively about the activities arranged by the activities co-ordinator.
One person told us that they sometimes did not receive their medicines at the correct time and that this caused them discomfort and pain.
Three people told us that they liked to sit in the conservatory as they were able to look at the garden. They said that, when the weather was nice, they enjoyed sitting in the garden. A relative told us that they felt that their relative was comfortable in their room and that they were warm enough.