CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Fern Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were sufficient and safeguarding systems were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. People were supported with communication, relationships, activities and access to the local community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider had introduced new quality checks, action plans and management arrangements. Inspectors found a more open and positive culture, while recognising there was still room for improvement.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous Requires Improvement rating.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 14 and 15 February 2023. Inspectors reviewed records, observed care, spoke with four people living at the home, eight relatives, nine staff and three professionals.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably trained staff, safe medicines systems, detailed care plans, support with activities and community access, and stronger management and quality checks.
The previous inspection rated the home Requires Improvement and found a breach about record keeping and governance. Inspectors found enough improvement had been made and the home was no longer in breach. Caring and Effective were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were carried forward into the overall rating.
Safe medicines and risk support
Medicines were stored safely and given as prescribed. Staff had clear guidance about risks such as epilepsy, eating and drinking, distress and as-required medicines.
“People's medicines were stored safely, and they received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Enough familiar staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and support community activities. Recruitment and staff stability had improved, with less reliance on agency staff.
“We have enough staff to get everyone out and about. We work really well as a team” from the report
Personalised activities
People were supported to choose how they spent their time and to take part in activities linked to their interests, both at home and in the community.
“People were being supported to enjoy activities which reflected their interests and hobbies.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that staff understood people's individual needs and protected their privacy and dignity.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Improved management checks
The provider had introduced regular audits covering areas such as health and safety, finances, medicines, training and supervision. Actions were allocated and checked when completed.
“The nominated individual had implemented new quality assurance systems to support the management of Fern Court.” from the report
Manager not yet registered
minorThe home did not have a manager registered with the CQC at the time of inspection. A manager had applied to become registered, but the report does not confirm the outcome.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
Further behaviour support training pending
needs fixingThe home was seeking additional recognised Positive Behaviour Support training. Families should ask what training staff currently have and when the extra training will be in place.
“The service was in the process of seeking additional Positive Behaviour Support Training, recognised by local authority commissioners.” from the report
- 01Has the manager's application to become registered with the CQC been completed, and who is responsible for the home in the meantime?
- 02What Positive Behaviour Support training have staff completed, and when will the additional recognised training be available?
- 03How will you keep my relative's care plan and risk assessments up to date if their needs or circumstances change?
- 04How are families involved in decisions about activities, community access and changes to the home?
- 05What were the outcomes of the latest audits, and which improvement actions are still open?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Caring and Effective were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 March 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.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Fern Court is rated Requires Improvement; the home left Special Measures after improvements, but care records and quality checks were still not reliable.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 5 and 6 July 2022. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and professionals. They also observed care and checked care, medicine and management records.
The home had improved since its previous Inadequate rating. Staffing levels had increased, fire safety checks had improved, and people were being supported to take part in activities and access the local community. People were described as receiving kind and respectful care.
However, some care and medicine records were inaccurate or incomplete. Quality checks had not reliably found these problems. The overall rating is Requires Improvement. The home is no longer in Special Measures, but CQC said it would continue to monitor progress.
More staff available
Staffing levels had increased since the previous inspection. Agency staff were used when needed, and staff received training and competency checks.
“Things have definitely improved. Staffing has helped. We are able to spend more time with people which reduces their anxieties.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed staff supporting people's choices and protecting their privacy and dignity.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Improved community access
The home had started helping people who had been isolated to go out again. Activities were being tailored to people's interests.
“For some people who had not left the service premises for nearly two years, there was early progress in supporting people in the community.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The manager and staff had introduced systems to learn from accidents and incidents and use this learning to reduce risks.
“The manager and support workers learnt from incidents, which enabled them to plan people's care and reduce the number of incidents for people living at Fern Court.” from the report
Care and medicine records
seriousSome risk assessments and care records were not current or clear. Medicine records contained conflicting information, and some topical creams were not dated when opened. This was a legal breach and created a risk of harm, although people were not affected during the inspection.
“The provider did not always ensure current and contemporaneous records of people's care and medical needs had been maintained. This placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Quality checks not reliable
seriousThe new monitoring systems had not been fully embedded. They had failed to identify problems with care plans and medicine records, so the provider remained in breach of Regulation 17.
“Quality assurance and monitoring systems were not fully embedded and were not fully effective at identifying and addressing shortfalls.” from the report
Community support still developing
needs fixingSupport to access the community had only recently restarted for some people, including people who had rarely left the home for nearly two years. Inspectors said there was still more work to do.
“We still have a long way to go, however we're supporting people and it's lovely to see them out and about.” from the report
- 01How are you now checking that each person's risk assessment, including choking risks, is current and clear?
- 02What checks confirm that medicine administration records are accurate and that topical creams are dated when opened?
- 03How often are care plans now reviewed, and how do you make sure no review is missed?
- 04What community activities and outings are currently available for my relative?
- 05How will you show families that the Regulation 17 breach has been fully addressed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led only; Effective and Caring were not assessed, and the inspection followed the previous Inadequate rating and Special Measures status. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 August 2022 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 Fern Court
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2022Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- March 2022InadequateSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 January 2011.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“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.