CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ferncross Residential Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Ferncross Residential Home was rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found unsafe medicines, recruitment and safety oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 14 and 18 December 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health and social care professional. They checked care records, medicines records, staff files, rotas, risk assessments and the home.
The home was not safe. Medicines records were poor, and an unauthorised and untrained staff member was administering medicines. Recruitment checks were incomplete. Risk assessments and care plans were not always current. Inspectors also found problems with gas safety, Legionella checks and hot water temperatures.
The home was not well-led. Checks and audits had failed to find important problems. The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection to Inadequate. The home is in special measures, and the CQC will monitor progress and normally re-inspect within six months.
Staff availability
Inspectors found enough staff were employed, and people and relatives said staff were available to support them.
“There were enough staff employed. Our observations during the inspection and staffing rotas supported this.” from the report
Safeguarding knowledge
Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. People and relatives said they felt safe with staff and management.
“Staff were trained to identify and report suspected abuse. Staff members were competent in this area.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control processes were appropriate, including the use of protective equipment.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Caring relationships
Inspectors saw positive interactions, and people and relatives said staff provided person-centred care.
“During the inspection visit, we saw positive and caring interactions between management, staff and people who lived at the home.” from the report
Unsafe medicines
seriousRecords for controlled drugs could not be relied on. An unauthorised and untrained staff member was administering medicines.
“A staff member was administering medicines who was not authorised or trained.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousSome essential checks on staff had not been completed, including checks about criminal records, identity, right to work and previous employers.
“Safe recruitment procedures were not followed. In 2 cases no checks had been made into staff member's backgrounds.” from the report
Risk and environmental safety
seriousRisk assessments were missing or out of date. Inspectors also found an expired gas safety certificate, no Legionella checks and hot water that could cause scalding.
“Some environmental safety issues needed addressing - the gas safety certificate was 2 years out of date and there were no Legionella bacteria checks taking place.” from the report
Weak oversight
seriousManagement checks did not identify or deal with the problems found. Some accidents and incidents were not properly recorded or reviewed.
“Although we noted a general lack of checks and audits in the service, any checks taking place, had not been effective in establishing the breaches of regulations seen in the 'safe' section of this report.” from the report
- 01Which staff are currently authorised and trained to administer medicines, and how are controlled-drug stocks and records checked?
- 02Have all recruitment files been reviewed, including criminal record, identity, right-to-work and previous-employer checks?
- 03What current risk assessments are in place for bedrails, falls and accidents, and how are they reviewed after incidents?
- 04Has the home completed gas safety, Legionella and hot-water checks, and what work remains from the fire safety programme?
- 05What independent checks are now in place to make sure problems are found and fixed promptly?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried over from the last inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 January 2024 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, May 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, but the home was not always well-led.
This was an unannounced inspection. One inspector visited on 17 March 2022 and gathered further views by telephone until 6 April. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and the registered manager, observed care, looked around the home and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
Inspectors found enough staff, suitable safety checks and good support with medicines, food and healthcare. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well, supported their choices and helped them maintain important relationships. Visitors were made welcome.
The main weakness was leadership and management knowledge. The registered manager did not fully understand some legal and regulatory requirements, so well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors also found one occasion of unsafe PPE use, some medicine record-keeping needing improvement, overdue training updates and delayed premises improvements. The manager acted on some issues during or after the inspection.
Safety and staffing
People were protected from abuse and risks were identified and managed. Inspectors found enough staff, including during a COVID-19 outbreak, and recruitment checks were completed.
“People were protected from abuse and risks to their safety had been identified and managed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were patient and caring. They offered choices, respected decisions and supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“Staff gave people choices about their care and support and respected the decisions people made.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people well and provided care that reflected their needs, wishes and important interests.
“Staff provided people with person-centred care that met their needs and took account of their wishes.” from the report
Family contact
Relatives said they could visit when they wished and were made welcome. People were supported to maintain relationships that mattered to them.
“Relatives told us they were made welcome in the home and could visit when they wished.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People received support to eat and drink enough, with fresh homemade meals and alternatives when needed. Staff also worked with health and specialist services.
“Staff provided the support people needed to eat and drink and to maintain a balanced diet.” from the report
PPE use
needs fixingInspectors saw one occasion when PPE was not used in line with best practice. The registered manager addressed this promptly.
“Although staff had been trained in the use of PPE, we saw one occasion when staff did not follow best practice in using PPE to reduce the risk of transmission of infection.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingPeople received their medicines, but inspectors found that record-keeping needed improvement. The manager was working with staff to make records complete and accurate.
“The registered manager was working with staff to support them to maintain full and accurate records of all support given with people's medicines.” from the report
Overdue training
minorSome training updates were overdue because of problems caused by the pandemic. The manager had an action plan to address this.
“Although staff had completed training, some training updates were overdue due to issues caused by the pandemic.” from the report
Leadership knowledge
needs fixingThe registered manager did not fully understand some legal and regulatory requirements. Inspectors recommended improving this knowledge, although they found no impact on the care provided.
“The registered manager lacked knowledge around some areas of legislation and associated regulatory requirements.” from the report
Premises improvements
minorSome areas of the older building needed updating. Improvements were planned, but some had been delayed by the pandemic.
“Some planned improvements had been delayed due to the impact of the pandemic.” from the report
- 01What has been done since the inspection to make sure all staff use PPE correctly and safely?
- 02How do you now check that medicine administration records are complete and accurate?
- 03Which staff training updates were overdue, and have they all now been completed?
- 04What changes have been made to the building, and which planned premises improvements are still outstanding?
- 05How has the registered manager improved their knowledge of the legal and regulatory requirements mentioned in the report?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the service was newly registered and this was its first inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 May 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 Ferncross Residential Home
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Inadequate.
- January 2024Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
- May 2022Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 February 2021.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.