CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Fernside Hall Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Fernside Hall Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control during a coronavirus outbreak.
Inspectors visited on 16 December 2020. This was an announced, targeted inspection looking at infection prevention and control because the home had experienced a coronavirus outbreak.
Inspectors found the home was clean and well ventilated. Communal areas supported social distancing, staff used personal protective equipment appropriately, and signs reminded people and staff about infection control.
The home was using the government testing scheme, which helped identify the outbreak quickly. Inspectors were assured about visiting arrangements, testing, admissions, shielding, social distancing, protective equipment, hygiene and the infection control policy.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection checked infection prevention and control arrangements only and did not give an overall quality rating.
Clean and well arranged
The home was clean and well ventilated, with communal areas arranged to support social distancing.
“The home was clean and well ventilated. Communal areas were arranged to facilitate social distancing.” from the report
Testing and outbreak detection
The home was using the government testing scheme, which helped it identify an outbreak quickly.
“The home was accessing the government testing scheme which had helped identify an outbreak quickly.” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to stay in touch with family and friends through phone and video calls.
“People were supported to keep in touch with family and friends through regular phone and video calls.” from the report
Protective equipment
Inspectors saw staff using protective equipment appropriately and were assured that it was being used safely.
“Signage throughout the home reminded people and staff of the infection control procedures to follow to ensure their safety. Staff wore PPE appropriately.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you managing coronavirus testing for people living here and for staff now?
- 02How do you prevent and manage infection outbreaks, and what would happen if another outbreak occurred?
- 03How are visitors currently supported to keep people safe from catching or spreading infections?
- 04How do staff use protective equipment and maintain social distancing in communal areas?
- 05How are residents supported to keep in touch with their families if visits are limited?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a coronavirus outbreak; the service was inspected but not rated for overall quality or the other care questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 January 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, August 2019
Rated Good overall, but Safe Requires Improvement because risk records, staffing and medicines checks were not always reliable.
This was the home’s first inspection since it registered. It was unannounced and took place on 14 May 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and a visiting health professional. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. People described kind care, good support with food and healthcare, personalised support, activities and accessible management.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that some risk information did not fully reflect people’s needs, staffing could be stretched and medicines guidance was not always checked properly. The manager dealt with several issues during the inspection, but the home’s own checks had not found all of them.
Kind and respectful staff
People and visitors were consistently positive about staff. Inspectors saw staff respond promptly and support people with dignity.
“Without exception, people who used the service and visitors were complimentary about the attitude and kindness of staff.” from the report
Skilled and supported staff
Staff had the training, knowledge and supervision needed to provide care effectively.
“Staff had the skills and knowledge to deliver care effectively.” from the report
Good activities and personalised care
Staff knew people well and supported them to take part in activities, outings and community life.
“People received person centred care and staff knew the people they were supporting well.” from the report
Positive management
People, relatives and professionals found the manager approachable and responsive. The manager took action during the inspection when shortfalls were identified.
“The registered manager was responsive throughout the inspection.” from the report
Risk information was incomplete
seriousSome risk assessments did not match the care people needed. Inspectors found missing or incomplete guidance about pressure equipment, wound care and leaving the building.
“Some assessments did not reflect the care people received.” from the report
Staffing could be stretched
needs fixingThere were enough staff to keep people safe, but people and relatives reported delays at busy times. The home was recruiting more night staff.
“There were enough staff to keep people safe but sometimes staffing was stretched.” from the report
Medicines checks were not always robust
seriousAn administration record did not match the medicine container, and timing instructions were not followed. Guidance for some as-required medicines also lacked enough detail.
“Systems were in place for managing medicines safely although staff did not always check directions robustly when administering medicines.” from the report
Some care records needed updating
needs fixingOne person did not have their call bell available as stated in their care plan. Communication plans and some end-of-life information also lacked detail.
“One person's plan stated they should always have access to their call bell when in their room, but we observed this was not the case.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to make sure every person’s risk assessment matches the care they receive?
- 02How many staff are on duty at night and at busy times, and has the recruitment of additional night workers been completed?
- 03How do staff now check medicine directions against the medicine container and administration records?
- 04How do you make sure people always have their call bell and that communication needs are recorded clearly?
- 05How are informal complaints and concerns now recorded, monitored and followed up?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering the home’s premises and care across all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 August 2019 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 Fernside Hall Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 May 2018.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Calderdale
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. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
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.