CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Far Fillimore Care Homes
Far Fillimore Rest Home
Wood Lane, Hanbury, Burton-on-Trent, DE13 8TG
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People were not always protected from abuse or avoidable harm. Risk assessments were not always followed, staffing levels were not based on assessed needs, and some safety equipment was not suitable or checked properly.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management and quality monitoring systems did not reliably identify risks or lead to improvement. The provider had not consistently created a learning culture.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found that safety risks were not always managed and quality checks did not reliably identify problems.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 8 November 2023. Inspectors looked at whether the home was safe and well-led. They spoke with people, a relative, staff and a professional, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was not always safe. Inspectors found unexplained bruising that had not been investigated or referred for safeguarding. Risk assessments were not always followed, falls were not always properly reviewed, staffing levels were not based on people's needs, and window restrictors were unsafe. The home was clean, but there was a strong smell in part of it.
The home was also not always well-led. Audits did not identify important safety problems or lead to enough improvement. Medicines were managed safely, people could have visitors, and the home was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection in 2018 to Requires Improvement. CQC asked the provider for an action plan and said it would monitor progress with the provider and local authority.
Medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were stored and given safely. Records matched the stock checked, and people said they received medicines as prescribed.
“People were supported to receive their medicines safely.” from the report
Cleanliness and infection control
The home was visibly clean, cleaning schedules were in place and staff followed infection control procedures using protective equipment. There was still a strong smell in one area.
“The home was visibly clean, and we saw cleaning schedules in place.” from the report
Choice and person-centred care
People said they could choose when to get up and go to bed. Staff knew people's likes and dislikes, and the home supported people within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
“The registered manager and staff knew people well and knew their likes and dislikes.” from the report
Safeguarding concerns
seriousTwo people had unexplained bruising. One person said staff had caused the bruising, but the incident and bruising were not referred to the local authority for investigation.
“People were not always safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm.” from the report
Risks and falls
seriousStaff did not always follow risk assessments. Falls and sensor mat problems were not consistently investigated or used to reduce the risk of further harm.
“Staff did not always follow people's individual risk assessments.” from the report
Staffing levels
seriousThe agreed staffing levels were not shown to be based on people's assessed needs. Inspectors found that a lack of staff was putting people at risk, particularly people who walked around or were at risk of falling.
“The lack of staff deployed throughout the home was putting people at risk of harm.” from the report
Unsafe window restrictors
seriousWindow restrictors on the top floor did not meet health and safety guidance and created a risk of falls from height. New restrictors were fitted the following day.
“We noted that the window restrictors, on the top floor of the home were not meeting health and safety guidance.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingAudits did not identify the safety problems found by inspectors. Falls, staffing and equipment problems were not analysed well enough to prevent repeat risks.
“Quality assurance systems had failed to identify the areas of concern we highlighted during our inspection.” from the report
Strong smell
minorAlthough the home was clean, inspectors found a strong smell in the ground floor bedroom area and recommended action to neutralise it.
“However, we noted a strong malodor in the ground floor bedroom area.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to investigate and refer unexplained bruising or other possible safeguarding concerns?
- 02How are you now making sure staff follow each person's risk assessment, especially when walking or at risk of falling?
- 03How are staffing levels calculated from people's assessed needs, and what happens when several people need support at the same time?
- 04How are falls and faulty sensor mats recorded, reviewed and followed up to prevent further harm?
- 05What improvements have been made to the quality audits, window restrictors and the smell in the ground floor bedroom area?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Far Fillimore Rest Home
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- December 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.
Or stay at home with a private carer
Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.
Other services run by Far Fillimore Care Homes Ltd
2 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.