CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ferndale
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements made since the previous inspection.
The CQC carried out a comprehensive announced inspection on 17 and 21 May 2018. Inspectors spoke with both people living at the home, staff, relatives and a visiting care professional. They also checked care records, medicines, staff files, training, rotas and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from harm, received suitable support with their health, and were treated with kindness and respect. People were supported to make choices, remain independent and take part in community activities.
The previous inspection in January 2017 found four breaches and several areas needing improvement. At this inspection, the CQC found that the required improvements had been made. Risk reviews, accident records, care reviews, governance checks, restrictive measures and a financial agreement had been addressed.
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw calm and friendly interactions. Staff had developed trusting relationships and responded quickly when people needed help or became distressed.
“Staff had built close, trusting relationships with people.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would my relative make a complaint if they could not use the complaints procedure independently?
- 02How do you identify and record changes in a person's mood, behaviour or communication?
- 03How often will my relative's care plan and risk assessments be reviewed, and who will involve us in those reviews?
- 04How will you support my relative to remain independent while managing identified risks?
- 05What lessons have you carried forward from the four breaches found at the January 2017 inspection?
This was a comprehensive announced inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the report says the required improvements from the January 2017 inspection had been made. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 June 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.
What inspectors found, February 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and good support, but gaps in safety records, consent, reviews and oversight.
Inspectors carried out a comprehensive, announced inspection on 15 January 2017. They spoke with two people living at the home, the registered manager, two staff members, a relative and two health and social care professionals. They also reviewed care records, training and recruitment files, medicine records and management records.
The home was caring, and staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were supported to stay independent, keep family relationships, use local services and take part in activities such as holidays, swimming and gardening. Staffing levels were flexible, medicines were managed safely and the home was clean and maintained.
However, the home did not always record accidents and incidents. Some risk assessments and care plans had not been reviewed regularly. Inspectors also found restrictive practices and financial penalties without enough evidence of consent or proper assessment. Quality checks did not identify these problems, and people and other stakeholders were not being asked regularly for their views.
The overall rating and the ratings for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were Requires Improvement. Caring was rated Good. The provider was told to send a report explaining what action it would take, and the CQC said it would check that action was completed.
Kind and respectful staff
People appeared relaxed and at ease. Staff understood people's communication and gave them time, privacy and reassurance.
“We observed staff were respectful and spoke with people in a kind and reassuring way.” from the report
Support for independence
People were helped to develop life skills, use local community facilities and make choices about activities and holidays.
“People told us that staff supported them to maintain their independence and we saw evidence of this within the care documentation we viewed.” from the report
Flexible staffing
Staffing levels changed to match people's needs, including when people went out or needed extra support.
“The service made sure staffing levels were flexible in order to be able to respond to the changing situations.” from the report
Health and wellbeing support
People could access health and social care professionals. Staff also supported a healthy eating and exercise programme that helped one person lose weight and become fitter.
“People were supported to access a range of health and social care professionals, including GP's, social workers, psychologists, opticians and dentists.” from the report
Family and community links
People were supported to keep relationships that mattered to them, visit family and take part in community activities.
“People were supported to maintain the relationships that were important to them and one person relative told us they were always made to feel welcome when they visited the service.” from the report
Accidents were not always recorded
seriousThe report describes falls that were either missing an accident record or not included in daily records. This could mean staff missed the need for extra monitoring.
“Accidents and incidents were not always being reported when they occurred.” from the report
Risks and care plans were out of date
needs fixingSome risk assessments and behaviour support plans had not been reviewed for long periods. This meant records might not reflect people's current needs.
“This showed peoples needs were not being reviewed regularly to reflect any changes or actions taken in respect of how people were receiving their care and support.” from the report
Restrictive and financial measures lacked consent
seriousA reward system included deductions from a person's allowance for certain behaviour. The report also identified old movement restrictions and payments for damage without evidence of consent or adequate assessment.
“There was no evidence this person understood the reasons behind the deductions, or that steps were being taken to engage with the person to try and understand trigger points that may have caused these actions.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
needs fixingMonitoring systems did not identify the problems found by inspectors. The home had not recently surveyed people, families, staff or other professionals.
“There was no evidence Ferndale was taking account of people's views of the service they received.” from the report
- 01Have all accidents and incidents, including falls, been recorded correctly since this inspection?
- 02How often are each person's risk assessments, care plans and behaviour support plans now reviewed?
- 03Have financial deductions, payments for damage and any movement restrictions been stopped or formally assessed and agreed with the person?
- 04How do you now obtain and act on the views of people living at the home, families, staff and other professionals?
- 05What action from the inspection plan has been completed, and can we see the evidence?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five questions: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 February 2017 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
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 February 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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.