# Housing 21 - Farmers Court

*Operated by Housing 21.*

Housing 21 - Farmers Court is a CQC-regulated home-care agency in Rugby.

## CQC Ratings

| Key question | Rating |
| --- | --- |
| Overall | Good |
| Safe | Good |
| Effective | Good |
| Caring | Good |
| Responsive | Good |
| Well-led | Good |

Rating published: 22/05/2018

## Practical info

- Postcode: CV21 3AR
- Local authority: Warwickshire
- Region: West Midlands
- City: Rugby
- Last CQC check: 22/May/2018 - 00:00

## Inspection findings

### Other

- Finding
  - Evidence: Provider achieved Investors in People silver accreditation
  - Published: 2021-10-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: Manager engaged with external organisations (Herbert Protocol, dementia-friendly initiatives, sensory garden funding)
  - Published: 2021-10-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: Quality assurance audits covering medication, care records, and staff practice with action plans
  - Published: 2021-10-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: Active complaints management with satisfactory resolution outcomes
  - Published: 2021-10-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: End of life care planning in place respecting individual wishes
  - Published: 2021-10-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: Alternative information formats (braille, large print) available for people with sensory impairments
  - Published: 2021-10-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: Cultural, religious, and communication needs assessed and recorded in care plans
  - Published: 2021-10-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: Person-centred care planning involving individuals, relatives, and health professionals
  - Published: 2021-10-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: Regular supervision, appraisals, and open-door management access for staff support
  - Published: 2021-10-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: Effective induction including Care Certificate, shadowing, and three-month probationary period
  - Published: 2021-10-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: Personalised, up-to-date risk assessments accessible to all staff
  - Published: 2021-10-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: Robust medicines management with trained staff, MAR records, and competency checks
  - Published: 2021-10-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: Staff received regular safeguarding training and were confident raising concerns with management
  - Published: 2021-10-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: Sufficient permanent staff employed with no need for agency staff; management and deputy covered gaps
  - Published: 2021-10-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: People felt safe and staff responded promptly to calls and emergencies, including pendant alarm responses
  - Published: 2021-10-30
- Finding
  - Evidence: Open culture with approachable management; staff felt well supported and able to raise concerns
  - Published: 2021-01-24
- Finding
  - Evidence: Robust recruitment checks including DBS were carried out prior to staff commencing work
  - Published: 2021-01-24
- Finding
  - Evidence: Complaints were documented, responded to in a timely manner, and lessons learned were communicated to staff
  - Published: 2021-01-24
- Finding
  - Evidence: Care records were personalised, including people's history, preferences, goals and objectives
  - Published: 2021-01-24
- Finding
  - Evidence: People were treated with dignity, respect, and kindness; staff promoted independence and privacy
  - Published: 2021-01-24
- Finding
  - Evidence: Staff received regular supervision, induction training, and ongoing development opportunities
  - Published: 2021-01-24
- Finding
  - Evidence: Medicines were administered safely, with weekly audits, competency assessments, and timely error investigation
  - Published: 2021-01-24
- Finding
  - Evidence: Staff were trained in safeguarding and understood procedures for reporting and escalating concerns
  - Published: 2021-01-24
- **care_planning** _(moderate)_
  - Evidence: Risk assessments were not always clear. They did not always record the outcome of the assessment, making it difficult to see what measures should be in place.
  - Published: 2021-01-24
- **person_centred_care** _(minor)_
  - Evidence: People told us they were not always fully involved in deciding how their care and support was delivered.
  - Published: 2021-01-24
- **governance** _(moderate)_
  - Evidence: These systems did not always work effectively, as for example, they had not identified that some risk assessments were not up to date.
  - Published: 2021-01-24
- **consent_capacity** _(moderate)_
  - Evidence: Care records did not clearly indicate whether or not people had capacity to make their own decisions.
  - Published: 2021-01-24
- **record_keeping** _(moderate)_
  - Evidence: we found risk assessments were not always up to date... one person's care plan review there were concerns about their mobility. This information had not been updated in their care plan
  - Published: 2021-01-24

## Source

Data published by the [Care Quality Commission](https://www.cqc.org.uk/) under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Canonical page: https://homecarecompass.co.uk/agency/1-258703047

HomeCare Compass is an independent guide and is not affiliated with the CQC.