CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 3 Ferndale Close
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- The person was protected from avoidable harm, and staff understood individual risks. Risk scores were not always clearly calculated, and inspectors identified a possible fire-door risk that the home agreed to rectify without delay.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff supported the person's health, nutrition, choices and access to healthcare. Staff had relevant training, supervision and support.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated the person with kindness, dignity and respect. The person was supported to make choices, maintain privacy and develop independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care and activities were tailored to the person's interests, needs and routines. Inspectors found that staff knew the person well, although some useful personal information and successful approaches were not recorded in care plans.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive, person-centred culture and regular checks on quality and risk. Staff felt supported and worked with families and health professionals.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some records and a fire-door issue needing attention.
This was a planned, announced inspection on 30 May 2019. One inspector spoke with the person living at the home, the home manager and three care staff. Records about care, medicines, training, complaints and quality checks were also reviewed.
The person was described as happy and well supported. Staff promoted choice, independence and involvement in the community. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training and good links with health professionals.
There were some areas to improve. Risk records did not clearly show how risk scores had been worked out. Some useful personal information known by staff was not written in the care plans. A possible fire-door risk was identified and action was arranged without delay.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the first rating inspection since the provider registered in September 2017.
Kind and supportive care
The person enjoyed living at the home and felt supported by staff who were described as kind and considerate.
“The person enjoyed living at the home and felt well supported by kind, caring and considerate staff.” from the report
Promoting independence
Staff supported the person to make decisions, take part in activities and manage risks positively rather than unnecessarily restricting them.
“The person continued to have choice and control of their life and staff continually promoted choices that were the least restrictive.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were stored and given safely. Records checked by inspectors showed staff signed correctly, and regular audits were in place.
“The person received their medicines safely. Medicines were stored and administered safely and records we checked, showed staff had correctly signed medicines administration records when given.” from the report
Enough staff
Staffing provided one-to-one support around the clock, with additional arrangements if more support was needed.
“Staffing levels met people's needs because staffing was provided on a one to one basis, 24 hours a day.” from the report
Positive leadership
Inspectors found an open, person-centred culture. Audits and governance systems were used to monitor quality and make improvements.
“Governance was well-embedded into the running of the service.” from the report
Risk scores were unclear
needs fixingStaff understood the person's risks, but the records did not clearly show how risk levels had been calculated or whether risks had changed over time. The home manager agreed to review them.
“however it was not clear how the risk level was assessed through a lack of scoring.” from the report
Possible fire-door risk
seriousInspectors identified that a designated fire door might not contain fire properly. The registered manager arranged for this to be dealt with without delay.
“However, we identified a designated fire door may present a risk of non-containment, so the registered manager arranged for this to be rectified without delay.” from the report
Care plans missed useful detail
needs fixingStaff knew the person's history, anxieties and approaches that worked well, but not all of this was recorded. Inspectors recommended adding it to the care plans for consistency.
“Positive approaches that worked well, were not always clearly recorded so we recommended this be incorporated into plans of care” from the report
- 01Have the risk scores now been reviewed so it is clear how each level was calculated and whether risks have changed?
- 02What action was taken to repair or replace the designated fire door, and when was this completed?
- 03Have the care plans been updated with the personal information and positive approaches that staff know are helpful?
- 04How would the home provide one-to-one staffing and personalised activities for my relative's particular needs?
- 05How are families involved in care reviews, activity planning and decisions about changes in support?
This was a planned, announced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the premises and care provided; it looked in detail at one person living at the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 June 2019 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 3 Ferndale Close
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 February 2018.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Worcestershire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.