Church Farm Care Home

The provider had recruitment processes that included checks before staff started work and considered gaps in employment histories.

“Staff files contained pre-employment safety checks, reviewed any gaps in applicant's employment histories, and ensured staff were safe to work with vulnerable people.” from the report

Although the dining experience and nutrition monitoring were poor, inspectors received positive feedback about the food's quality and choice.

“Overall, we received positive feedback about the quality and choice of food available.” from the report

Some people and relatives said staff were kind and approachable, despite the wider concerns about staffing and person-centred care.

“A person's relative said, "The carers are so approachable, it is a big family here.” from the report

There were no restrictions on visits, and relatives and friends could stay for meals.

“People were able to receive visitors without restrictions in line with best practice guidance.” from the report

Risk assessments and monitoring were poor. Problems included pressure care, falls, bowel care, diabetes, mental health and unsafe access to potentially harmful items.

“The provider did not mitigate risks to people receiving care.” from the report

People did not always receive medicines on time, records had gaps, medicines were not always stored securely and errors were found.

“People were not supported to receive their medicines in a safe way.” from the report

Staffing, especially at night, was not sufficient for people's needs or emergencies. Many mandatory training courses had not been completed, and agency staff were used to cover shortages.

“Sufficient levels of suitably trained, competent staff were not in place to keep people safe, in line with the service's own assessed staffing numbers.” from the report

Meals could take more than two hours to serve, and records showed serious gaps in food and fluid intake. Some guidance from dieticians was not followed.

“Food and fluid records were poor.” from the report

People had limited control over daily routines and activities. Continence products were left in corridors, and staff did not always respond promptly to requests for toilet support.

“People's privacy, dignity and independence were not respected and promoted.” from the report

Audits did not identify or fix problems, incidents were not consistently reported, and inspectors found low staff morale and signs of a closed culture.

“The provider had poor governance and oversight arrangements in place to maintain standards and drive improvement at the service.” from the report