CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ferndale Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Inspected but not rated; the previous Good rating remained unchanged, with kind, personalised care and a minor concern about mask use.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 24 September 2021. Inspectors checked anonymous concerns about risk management, people's choices, night staffing and whether staff could meet people's needs. They also checked infection prevention and control.
Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from these concerns. People appeared happy and at ease with staff. Staff knew people's needs, staffing levels were enough, and care plans were personalised.
The home was clean and had measures to manage COVID-19 risks. Some staff were wearing masks below their noses, but this was addressed when prompted. The inspection did not review all areas, so the five questions were marked inspected but not rated. The overall rating remained Good from the previous inspection.
Kind relationships
People appeared comfortable with staff, who treated them respectfully and supported their independence.
“We observed staff treating people with dignity and respect.” from the report
Staffing and risk support
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, including overnight. Staff understood risks and knew how to support people living with dementia.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's histories, personalities, interests and preferences. Staff used this information to provide person-centred care.
“This enabled them to engage effectively and provide meaningful, person centred care.” from the report
Choice and independence
Staff asked people about their preferences and supported them to make decisions about food, routines and activities.
“We saw staff asking people for their preferences throughout the day, encouraging them to make decisions such as on what to eat or how they wished to spend their time.” from the report
Masks not always worn correctly
minorInspectors saw some staff wearing masks below the nose. This was corrected when prompted, and the importance of using protective equipment properly was discussed with the registered manager.
“During our visit, we observed some staff wearing their mask below the nose.” from the report
- 01How do you check that staff wear masks and other protective equipment correctly?
- 02How do you maintain safe night staffing when regular staff are unavailable and agency staff are used?
- 03How will you support my relative's choices about bedtime, getting up and daily routines?
- 04How do you update care plans when a person's needs, preferences or communication change?
- 05How do you monitor eating, drinking and weight, and respond to unplanned weight loss?
This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns and infection prevention and control; it did not review the full key questions, so the previous Good ratings were not changed. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 October 2021 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, September 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but noted an ongoing safeguarding investigation and a reporting shortfall.
The unannounced inspection took place on 2 and 7 August 2018. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff, managers and health and social care professionals. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staffing, training, complaints and safety records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. There were 15 people living at the home, which was registered for up to 17 people, including people living with dementia.
Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training, kind care, personalised support and a good range of activities. They also found that concerns raised before the inspection had been investigated or were still being investigated, with action taken in some areas.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed staff being gentle, patient and reassuring, particularly when supporting people living with dementia.
“We observed staff treated people with kindness and had gentle manner when supporting people who were living with dementia.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and found that medicines were stored, recorded and administered safely.
“Sufficient numbers of staff were provided to meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences, routines, life histories and changing needs. People and relatives were involved in decisions about care.
“People received personalised care which took account of their preferences and changing needs.” from the report
Activities and community access
The home offered varied activities and supported people to use local community facilities. Inspectors highlighted the holiday arranged for people.
“There was a good range of activities for people and the provider was particularly imaginative in ensuring people had a holiday which people enjoyed” from the report
Good health links
The home worked with NHS services, specialist teams and a local hospice to coordinate care and support people's health needs.
“The provider worked well with other agencies such as local health services to ensure people received a coordinated approach to their care.” from the report
Safeguarding matter still open
needs fixingOne of three safeguarding concerns reviewed by inspectors was still being investigated by the provider and local authority at the time of the inspection.
“One of these was still being investigated by the provider and local authority.” from the report
An injury was not discussed promptly with safeguarding staff
minorThe registered manager accepted that an injury should at least have been discussed with the local authority safeguarding team. The report does not say that this resulted in a breach.
“The registered manager recognised that the injury should have at least been discussed with the local authority safeguarding team” from the report
- 01What was the outcome of the safeguarding concern that was still being investigated during the inspection?
- 02What action was taken after the concerns about moving and handling, and how are staff checked to ensure they follow the correct procedures?
- 03How does the home make sure injuries and other incidents are discussed with the local authority safeguarding team when appropriate?
- 04How are care plans updated when a person's health or support needs change?
- 05What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative, including if they preferred to stay in their room?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC areas and the overall rating; the Good ratings continued from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 September 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 Ferndale Residential Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not ratedCaring: Inspected but not ratedResponsive: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Ferndale Residential Care Home →
- September 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Ferndale Residential Care Home →
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 October 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
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.