CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ferrars Hall Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Staff understood safeguarding procedures and people's known risks. Medicines and infection control were managed safely overall, although instructions for medicines given when needed needed more detail.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received induction, training and support, and helped people with food, drinks and healthcare. The home had also improved how it offered menu choices after inspectors raised this.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People and relatives were involved in care decisions, and staff supported independence where possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences and complaints were investigated. Activities had improved since 2019, although one relative wanted more encouragement for their family member to take part.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team monitored incidents, risks and the quality of care, and acted on findings. Staff worked with health and social care professionals and shared learning when things went wrong.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Ferrars Hall Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some improvements still needed around night call bells and medicines instructions.
This was an unannounced inspection on 21 September 2022. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and other professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff overall, safe recruitment, kind care, support with food and healthcare, and care plans that were updated when people's needs changed.
There were some smaller issues to address. Night-time call bell responses could be slow. Instructions for medicines given when needed were not detailed enough. Some relatives wanted more encouragement for people to join activities, and some staff wanted more time to read care records.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff involved people and relatives in decisions about care and supported people to remain independent.
“Staff were kind, caring and knew people's individual needs, wishes and preferences.” from the report
Good staff training
Staff had induction, regular training, competency checks and ongoing support. Inspectors saw staff using moving and handling equipment appropriately.
“Staff told us they received regular training and could ask for additional training around specific health conditions and diseases.” from the report
Good oversight
The management team used audits and reviews of incidents, accidents and risks to identify improvements. Learning was shared across the provider's services.
“Audits were undertaken and there was analysis of risk, incidents, accidents, near misses that helped identify any areas or people that required further monitoring and action.” from the report
Improved activities
The home had recruited three activities co-ordinators since the previous inspection. People could choose whether to take part in activities.
“At this inspection there had been some improvement with three activities co-ordinators employed to support people to spend their time in a meaningful way.” from the report
Night-time call bells
needs fixingTwo people said staff could be slow to respond to call bells at night. The home was training an extra staff member to provide more night support.
“However, two people told us that call bell responses by staff at night could be slow.” from the report
Medicines instructions
needs fixingInstructions for medicines given when needed did not give staff full directions about when and how to give them. The manager said this would be improved.
“However, these required further development to ensure the information specified gave staff full directions on how and when to administer these medicines.” from the report
Activities and personal information
minorOne relative wanted more encouragement for their family member to join activities. Some staff also wanted more time to read care records, especially when new to the home or moving floors.
“However, a relative told us they would like staff to encourage their family member to take part in more activities.” from the report
- 01How quickly do staff respond to call bells at night, and what has changed since inspectors raised this concern?
- 02Have the instructions for medicines given when needed been rewritten, and how do you check staff follow them?
- 03How do you match activities to each person's interests and make sure people are encouraged without pressure?
- 04How much protected time do staff have to read care records when they start or move to another floor?
- 05Are picture menus being used for people who need them to understand their choices?
This was the first inspection under the new provider and covered all five key questions; the previous provider's Responsive rating was Requires Improvement in 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 October 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, January 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection-control and visiting arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 13 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and the effect of COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
The inspectors were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, carried out testing, managed visits and admissions safely, and kept its infection-control policy up to date. Staff were also following measures such as temperature checks and regular cleaning.
Families and friends could visit through planned arrangements, including garden, window or screened-room visits. People could also keep in touch with relatives using tablets and phones.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not provide a new overall quality rating or full ratings for all five areas of care.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that PPE, testing, cleaning and other infection-control measures were being used safely.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Safe visiting
Visits were arranged in ways intended to reduce infection risks, with testing, temperature checks, PPE and gaps between visits.
“Family and friends could visit people who lived at the service in line with current guidance.” from the report
Keeping families connected
Staff helped people stay in contact with family and friends through video calls and other communication.
“Staff supported people to use computer tablets and phones to video call and/or communicate with family and friends.” from the report
PPE practice
Staff were observed using PPE correctly and following other infection-control practices.
“Staff were observed to be wearing their PPE correctly including face masks.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Are the current visiting arrangements still appointment-based, and what testing and protective equipment do visitors need?
- 02How are you currently managing any staffing pressures linked to COVID-19 or other absence?
- 03How often are staff and residents tested now, and what happens if someone tests positive?
- 04How do staff help residents keep in touch with family and friends if in-person visits are restricted?
- 05Can you provide the latest information about care quality areas that were not assessed in this inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the other care quality areas were not assessed and no overall rating was given. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 January 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 Ferrars Hall Care Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- June 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- July 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 July 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Cambridgeshire
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 £1,200 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 12 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.