CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Fearnley House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Fearnley House is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a medicines storage issue being addressed.
This was an unannounced, planned and comprehensive inspection on 23 July 2019. One inspector spoke with the four people living at the home, staff, relatives and health and social care professionals. They also observed care, medicines and meals, and checked care records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, received their medicines as prescribed, and had enough suitable staff supporting them. Care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed.
Inspectors found kind and respectful support that promoted choice, independence, communication and community activities. They noted that medicines were stored in a room without effective temperature control, although staff had taken temporary steps and improvement plans were in place. The overall rating was unchanged from the previous Good rating published in April 2017.
Personalised support
Care was shaped around each person's needs, preferences and communication style. Inspectors found that people were supported to gain skills and become more independent.
“People received personalised care which met their needs and enabled them to live as full and independent a life as possible.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff treated people with dignity and built respectful relationships. Relatives and professionals consistently praised the care and support.
“People experienced genuine choice and support to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet and good health.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in activities they chose, use local facilities and maintain important relationships.
“Staff supported people to take part in activities according to their wishes and abilities, which promoted their independence.” from the report
Skilled and supported staff
Staff training, supervision and competency checks were up to date. Training was adapted for people with more complex needs.
“Staff had been supported to develop and maintain the required knowledge, skills and experience to support people effectively and safely.” from the report
Medicines storage
needs fixingMedicines were stored in the manager's office, where temperature control was not effective. Staff had taken temporary measures, and the provider had an improvement plan for a more suitable storage room.
“At the time of inspection, medicines were stored in the registered manager's office, which did not have effective temperature control.” from the report
Night staffing vacancy
minorThere was a vacancy in the night staffing provision. Usual day staff were covering it at the time of inspection, although inspectors said the staffing level and skills were sufficient.
“However, at the time of inspection, members of the usual day staff were providing cover for a vacancy in the night staffing provision.” from the report
- 01Has the more suitable medicines storage room been created, and how are medicine temperatures checked now?
- 02Has the night staffing vacancy been filled, and who usually provides cover at night?
- 03How will staff communicate with and support my relative's particular communication needs?
- 04What activities and community opportunities could my relative take part in?
- 05How are relatives involved when care plans or support needs change?
This was an unannounced, planned comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 September 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.
What inspectors found, April 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with more sensory equipment recommended.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 16 March 2017. The inspector spoke with people using the home, relatives, the manager and care workers. They reviewed four care records and other management records.
The home supported three people at the time, although it had space for four. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely and staffing was suitable.
Care was described as kind, respectful and person-centred. Staff understood how people communicated, supported activities in the community and followed detailed plans for needs such as choking and epilepsy.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same rating as at the previous inspection.
Safe care and risk planning
The home assessed risks linked to people's health and the building. Staff reviewed incidents and used them to help prevent problems happening again.
“Risks to people from the building were managed to ensure the risk of harm was reduced.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and understood different ways of communicating. Inspectors saw privacy and dignity being respected.
“We found the staff were very kind and loved their roles.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans recorded people's likes, dislikes, wishes and health needs in detail. Staff followed specialist guidance, including for choking and epilepsy.
“Care documentation about people's individual care was very detailed but easy to read and understand.” from the report
Activities and community life
People had weekly activity plans, attended community events and, in some cases, college. They were supported to build independence.
“People were active members of the local community, and noted many pictures of them when they participated in various external events.” from the report
Regular quality checks
Managers and the provider regularly reviewed care, incidents, complaints and staff support. Actions and deadlines were recorded.
“The quality of people's care was regularly assessed.” from the report
More sensory equipment needed
minorPeople had some sensory equipment, but inspectors said more could improve social stimulation. They made a recommendation to the home.
“We recommend the service obtains more sensory equipment for people to improve people's social stimulation.” from the report
Alternative weighing method
needs fixingStaff had difficulty weighing one person because of mobility problems. Managers said they would explore another way to assess the person's risk of malnutrition.
“Staff experienced difficulty with weighing one person because of their mobility.” from the report
- 01What sensory equipment is now available, following the inspector's recommendation for more equipment?
- 02How do you monitor the person's risk of malnutrition when they cannot easily be weighed?
- 03How are risk assessments updated when a person's health or behaviour changes?
- 04How do you make sure staff continue to follow the detailed choking and epilepsy care plans?
- 05What actions were taken after the building and equipment concerns raised by staff?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five ratings, and all five remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 April 2017 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 Fearnley House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 December 2010.
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
83 live-in carers within about an hour of Windsor and Maidenhead
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.