CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Ferndale Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found good practice with PPE, admissions and visitor arrangements. They also found cracked bathtub panels, sluice areas needing cleaning and missing recorded COVID-19 risk assessments for staff.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control practice but maintenance and staff risk assessments needed improvement.
The CQC carried out an announced, targeted inspection on 09 March 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time, 26 people lived in the home, which could care for up to 28 people.
Inspectors found good practice in several areas. Staff used protective equipment correctly, people were given information about infection control, and the home had arrangements for safer visits and admissions.
However, some areas needed improvement. Cracked bathtub panels and dirty sluice areas needed attention, and the provider did not have maintenance and cleaning checklists for these concerns. COVID-19 risk assessments for staff had also not been recorded.
The service was inspected but not rated. The report gives a rating only for the infection-control part of the Safe question, and that was also recorded as inspected but not rated.
Correct PPE use
Staff had received infection-control and PPE training, and inspectors saw them wearing PPE correctly.
“All staff were observed to be wearing PPE correctly.” from the report
Information for people
The home gave people information about COVID-19, social distancing and infection-control procedures.
“The provider gave information to people about the COVID-19 virus, social distancing and other infection control procedures.” from the report
Safer visits
The home provided face-to-face visiting arrangements, including outdoor spaces and a process for allocated visitors to meet people in their rooms.
“Visitors could visit people face to face using a dedicated entrance to an area of the home.” from the report
Safe admissions
Inspectors were assured that people were being admitted safely to the home.
“We were assured that the provider was admitting people safely to the service.” from the report
Maintenance and cleaning
needs fixingCracked bathtub panels and sluice areas that needed cleaning posed a safety risk. There were no maintenance and cleaning checklists linked to these concerns.
“The building had areas which required maintenance and cleaning to ensure they were safe.” from the report
Staff risk assessments not recorded
needs fixingThe provider had not completed recorded COVID-19 risk assessments with staff, although staff had access to occupational health support and had discussed risks with the manager.
“The provider had not carried out COVID-19 risk assessments with staff.” from the report
- 01Have the cracked bathtub panels been repaired, and how are repairs and cleaning now checked?
- 02How are sluice areas cleaned and monitored, and are there written checklists?
- 03Have COVID-19 or other health risk assessments been completed and recorded for every staff member?
- 04What changes were made after the CQC raised these concerns?
- 05How do visits work now, including visits in a resident's room and outdoor visits?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the report does not provide a full assessment of all five questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 June 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.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home was not always safe because some texture-modified food and fluids were not managed correctly.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 5 February 2020. They observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and the providers, and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. People described kind care from a small, consistent staff team. Medicines, staffing, infection control, hydration, nutrition and falls were generally managed well.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that some people needing texture-modified food or fluids had been given food, sauces, gravy or cream that had not been prepared safely. The home was asked to seek specialist advice and gave assurances about changes.
The overall Good rating means inspectors found the service generally met people's needs, but there was limited assurance about some safety arrangements. The previous overall rating was also Good, although the Safe rating had fallen from Good to Requires Improvement.
Kind and compassionate care
Staff were described and observed as caring, patient and respectful. People were supported in a warm and dignified way.
“People received care from a small, dedicated team who demonstrated kind and compassionate care.” from the report
Consistent staffing
People and relatives said there were enough staff, and the small, consistent team knew people's needs well.
“There was a small, consistent staff team and staff told us this helped ensure that staff knew people's needs well.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Registered nurses gave medicines when needed. Staff checked whether people needed as-required medicines, and medicines were reviewed with healthcare professionals.
“Medicines management was safe. People's medicines were administered by registered nurses and people were supported to have these when they needed them.” from the report
Personalised activities and communication
Staff supported people's interests and adapted activities and information for communication needs, including visual impairment and dementia.
“People enjoyed activities such as colouring, ball games, and scrabble as well as outings in the local community.” from the report
Visible leadership
The management team was present in the home and used audits and incident reviews to identify risks and make changes.
“The registered manager had oversight of people's care as did the small, consistent and committed staff team.” from the report
Texture-modified food was not always safe
seriousSome people at risk of choking were given high-risk foods that should have been avoided. The home did not have all the specialist guidance needed to prepare these foods safely.
“Records showed, and staff confirmed that people had sometimes been given foods that were classed as high-risk foods that should be avoided for people assessed as requiring a texture modified diet and this placed them at potential risk of harm.” from the report
Swallowing needs were not fully assessed
seriousThree people were prescribed thickened fluids, but referrals for specialist swallowing assessments had not been made. Some gravy, sauces and cream were not thickened as required.
“For example, records showed, and staff confirmed that all three people had been provided with gravy, sauces and cream that had not been thickened before they were provided.” from the report
Unprescribed thickening agent used
seriousStaff used a thickening agent that had not been prescribed. The provider assured inspectors that thickening agents would only be given when prescribed.
“Staff were observed using a thickening agent that had not been prescribed.” from the report
- 01Have all residents who need texture-modified food or thickened fluids now had a speech and language therapy assessment?
- 02What written guidance do staff follow about foods and mixed textures that people at risk of choking must avoid?
- 03How do you check that gravy, sauces, cream and other foods are prepared to the correct consistency?
- 04Do you only use thickening agents that have been prescribed for the individual person?
- 05How will you show families that the safety concerns from this inspection have been addressed?
This was an unannounced, planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 February 2020 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 Ferndale Nursing Home
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.