CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Fennell Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, July 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and responsive support, but the Effective rating Requires Improvement because some mental capacity and staff induction records were incomplete.
The unannounced inspection took place on 23 May 2018. One inspector observed support, spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers, and checked care, staff, incident, maintenance and audit records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were also rated Good. People told inspectors they felt safe, were treated with kindness and had support that reflected their choices, needs and interests.
Effective was rated Requires Improvement. Some mental capacity assessments had not been recorded before best-interest decisions were made. Evidence of induction was also missing for two of 12 recently recruited staff during the visit. The manager sent evidence after the inspection and was asked to improve the mental capacity recording process.
Detailed risk planning
Risk assessments were tailored to each person and gave staff clear guidance. Incidents and accidents were reviewed to reduce future risks.
“Risk assessments were person centred, detailed and contained clear directions for staff to ensure risk was managed well.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday choices and take part in activities such as shopping, meals, walks and trips out.
“People were supported to make choices and decisions about their daily lives.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Inspectors saw warm relationships between staff and people. Staff supported privacy, dignity and communication in ways that suited each person.
“We observed warm and positive interactions between them.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans covered people's health, communication, preferences, emotional needs and independence. People and their representatives were involved in reviews.
“People and their representatives were involved in person-centred planning reviews.” from the report
Good health support
People had access to a wide range of health professionals. Advice from professionals was included in care plans.
“Records showed people had access to external health professionals and we saw this had included GP's, psychiatrists, community nurses, chiropodists, dentists, speech and language therapists, physiotherapists and district nurses.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingSome best-interest decisions had been recorded without the required mental capacity assessment being recorded first. The manager said this would be corrected and sent evidence after the inspection.
“We found whilst best interest paperwork had been recorded for some decisions such as whether to consent to the recording and sharing of information, the required mental capacity assessment prior to this was not recorded.” from the report
Induction evidence
minorThe home could not show induction records for two of 12 recently recruited staff during the inspection. Evidence was sent afterwards.
“Twelve new staff had recently been recruited to the service and evidence of induction was not available for two of these staff during the inspection.” from the report
Some recruitment records
minorRecruitment and selection processes were considered safe, but some records were not up to date.
“Safe recruitment and selection processes were in place, although some records were not up to date.” from the report
- 01Have all mental capacity assessments and decision-specific best-interest records now been completed?
- 02How do you check that every new member of staff has completed and has evidence of their induction?
- 03What action was taken to bring recruitment records up to date?
- 04How does the home now make sure its audits identify gaps in mental capacity records?
- 05How will you make sure people continue to have enough opportunities for trips and activities, including at weekends?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five quality questions; the overall rating remained Good, while the Effective rating changed to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 July 2018 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 Fennell Court
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 July 2014.
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 Kirklees
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. 86 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.