CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Fessey House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks were assessed, medicines were administered and recorded safely, and there were enough suitably skilled staff. An incomplete legionella action plan was found during the inspection, with later evidence of action.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care was planned with their involvement. Staff worked with health professionals, supported nutrition and hydration, and promoted independence and rehabilitation.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- Inspectors saw exceptionally compassionate and respectful care. Staff knew people well, supported their communication and choices, and helped maintain relationships and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's routines, preferences and changing needs. People had a wide range of activities, and complaints were recorded, investigated and answered.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a clear management structure, positive teamwork and systems to check quality and safety. People, relatives and staff were involved in decisions and improvements.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good, with Outstanding caring; inspectors found major improvements since the previous inspection, with kind and personalised care.
Inspectors visited on 13 March 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, complaints, incidents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. It was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led care. Caring was rated Outstanding.
Inspectors found people were safe, their medicines were managed properly and staff had the right skills. People received personalised care and were supported to stay independent. Staff were described as exceptionally kind, respectful and committed.
This was a clear improvement from the previous rating of Requires Improvement. The report says the earlier action needed on medicines management had been completed. Inspectors did identify an incomplete legionella risk-assessment action plan during the visit, but the provider later sent evidence that the necessary actions had been taken.
Exceptional kindness
Staff were highly compassionate and respectful. Inspectors saw them reassure people patiently and respond sensitively to distress.
“Throughout the inspection we observed some lovely practice by staff who emotionally supported people with compassion.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's histories, preferences and communication needs. Care was adapted so people could make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“People were supported by exceptionally caring staff that knew them well and understood how to maximise their potential.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely, given as prescribed and recorded accurately. The action required after the previous inspection had been completed.
“People received their medicines as prescribed and the home had safe medicine storage systems in place.” from the report
Activities and independence
The home offered individual and group activities, community links and spaces designed to help people move around independently.
“Colour coordination was used to enable people to find their way in the home and to promote their independence.” from the report
Strong teamwork
Inspectors found a supportive staff team and managers who involved people, relatives and staff in decisions and service improvements.
“There was positive staff morale with staff saying they felt very well supported in their roles.” from the report
Legionella action plan
needs fixingAt the visit, an action plan following a legionella risk assessment had not been fully completed. The provider later supplied evidence that the necessary steps had been taken to reduce the risk.
“During the inspection we found an action plan from a legionella risk assessment had not been fully completed.” from the report
- 01What checks are now in place to make sure legionella risk-assessment actions remain complete?
- 02How are medicines checked and how are any errors investigated and learned from?
- 03How many permanent staff usually support people, and when are agency staff used?
- 04How would you tailor activities and communication for my relative's dementia, mobility or other needs?
- 05If my relative needed rehabilitation, how would the discharge-to-assess team and health professionals support their move home?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality and safety of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 May 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.
What inspectors found, March 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care but unsafe medicine arrangements and weak quality checks.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 29 November 2017. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, managers and staff. They observed care and checked care records, medicine records, staff files, complaints, incidents and quality audits.
People were supported by enough staff and staff knew them well. Inspectors found good care, effective support, kind relationships, suitable care plans and prompt access to health professionals. The home was clean and staff followed recruitment and safeguarding procedures.
Medicines were not always managed safely. This included medicines stored at too high a temperature, unclear records for creams, missed pain relief, errors not followed up with training, and thickening agents left where people could reach them. Quality checks did not identify these problems, and accident records did not make trends easy to see. The home was in breach of Regulation 12.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs promptly. The home had low staff turnover and an experienced team, although agency staff were used for some absences.
“There were sufficient staff to keep people safe.” from the report
Strong joint working
The home worked closely with health and social care professionals. Regular meetings helped review progress, adjust care plans and reduce delays in getting support.
“We found evidence of excellent multidisciplinary working between the provider, commissioning services, therapy services and the local hospital to ensure positive outcomes for people.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw caring interactions and found that staff respected privacy, dignity, equality and personal choices.
“We observed caring and light-hearted interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, likes, dislikes and support needs. Staff used these plans to promote independence and respond when people's needs changed.
“All care plans we looked at were complete and gave clear guidance to staff on how best to support people.” from the report
Medicine safety
seriousMedicines were not always stored, given or recorded safely. Inspectors found missed pain relief, unclear cream records, unsafe storage of thickening agents and medicine errors without effective follow-up.
“Medicines were not always managed safely or administered when people required them.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingMonthly audits were carried out, but they did not identify important medicine management concerns. Accident and incident records were not analysed well enough to show trends.
“However, these were not robust and did not identify concerns we found during the inspection in respect of medicines management.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingStaff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act, but written capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were not always completed.
“Staff did not always complete written capacity assessments or document best interest decisions.” from the report
- 01How are medicine room temperatures now monitored and what happens if they become too high?
- 02How are creams and other topical medicines recorded so that each prescribed medicine is clearly accounted for?
- 03What cover is now available so that people can receive as-required pain relief when needed?
- 04How are thickening agents kept safely out of people's reach?
- 05How do managers now check for medicine errors, identify accident trends and make sure staff competencies are reassessed?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five questions and both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 March 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 Fessey House
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 September 2016.
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
44 live-in carers within about an hour of Swindon
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 £990 to £1,280 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Linet became her carer and all changed, my daughter started eating, taking her medications and more important her happiness came back.”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.