CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Fornham House Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and responsive care, with safety improved since the previous inspection.
This was a comprehensive inspection on 6 and 7 November 2018. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a health professional. They also reviewed care plans, recruitment files, medicine records, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine systems, suitable risk assessments and good safeguarding arrangements.
People were described as treated kindly and respectfully. Staff supported people's choices, health, food and activities. The home had improved its approach to pressure area care, medicines during trips and call bell response times since the previous inspection.
A Good rating means the inspectors found the home meeting the regulations and providing a good standard of care at the time of this inspection. It does not mean that every part of the service was perfect.
Improved safety
The home had acted on the safety concerns raised at the previous inspection. Inspectors found better arrangements for skin care, medicines during trips and call bell monitoring.
“At this inspection we found action had been taken to improve the safety of the service on all three of the above issues.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and checked as competent to give medicines. Medicines were stored securely and temperatures were monitored.
“People's medicines were safely managed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as caring and kind. Inspectors saw staff protecting privacy, offering reassurance and treating people with dignity.
“Staff interacted with people in a caring, respectful and professional manner.” from the report
Good leadership
The home had regular meetings, handovers and audits. Staff said they were supported, and inspectors found the manager approachable and responsive.
“The service was well led and provided strong leadership which promoted a positive, caring culture which was focused on the needs of people who used the service.” from the report
Activities and personal choices
Activities were offered at different ability levels and were based on people's interests. People were also supported to make choices about their daily lives.
“Activities were designed at varying levels of ability, to ensure all people using the service could be included, if they chose to do so.” from the report
Food preferences not always recorded
minorInspectors found that people's likes and dislikes had not always been written in their care plans. Catering staff said they spoke with people and adjusted menus, but families should check that individual preferences are recorded.
“People's dietary likes and dislikes had not always been recorded in the care plans.” from the report
- 01How are each person's food likes, dislikes and dietary needs recorded and kept up to date?
- 02How do you monitor call bell response times now, and what happens when a response is outside the expected time?
- 03How are medicines checked when someone goes out for the day or on a trip?
- 04What progress has been made with the planned breakfast arrangements and additional meal serving areas?
- 05What changes have been made to signage to help people find their way around the home?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering the premises and care provided, with ratings given for all five questions; Safe improved from Requires Improvement to Good since 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 December 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, December 2016
Fornham House Residential Home was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, effective care but some safety issues still needed improvement.
Inspectors visited on 12 and 13 October 2016. The first visit was unannounced. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, rotas and quality checks.
The home had improved significantly since the previous inspection in December 2015. Staffing had increased, care records were better, and there was stronger management oversight. People were treated kindly, received individual care, enjoyed the food and activities, and were supported to access healthcare.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Safe was rated Requires Improvement because some call bell waits were too long, pressure care needed more review, and medicines arrangements needed improvement.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw compassionate care and found that people’s dignity, choices and preferences were respected.
“We found staff were patient, kind and caring in their interactions with people and showed an interest in the people they were caring for which was far from being 'task led'.” from the report
Improved management
The manager had strengthened staffing, monitoring and communication since the previous inspection.
“A robust system of audits was in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service.” from the report
Food and nutrition
People could choose meals and received support with eating and drinking. Staff monitored nutrition and involved dieticians when needed.
“All the people we spoke with were very positive about the food.” from the report
Care plans reflected changing needs
Care plans included people’s wishes and were updated when their needs changed.
“Care plans we viewed had been appropriately updated and reviewed when people's needs changed.” from the report
Good activities and complaint handling
People had access to activities, outings and community events. Complaints were recorded, investigated and answered in a timely way.
“We saw that complaints received had been investigated and responded to in a timely manner.” from the report
Call bell waits
seriousAlthough response times had improved, some people still waited more than 11 minutes for their call bells to be answered.
“There were still times when people were waiting more than 11 minutes for their call bell to be responded to.” from the report
Pressure care
seriousSome people spent lengthy periods in wheelchairs instead of being moved to more suitable seating. Inspectors also found a clothing-related pressure risk that needed monitoring.
“We also saw that some people were spending lengthy amounts of time in their wheelchairs rather than being transferred to more appropriate seating for their comfort and pressure care.” from the report
Medicines when residents go out
seriousThe home did not have a robust procedure for medicines when people went out for the day. One person missed some medicines.
“We saw that one person had gone out for the day and missed taking some of their medicines.” from the report
Medicine patches
seriousMorphine patches were not always placed correctly on people’s skin, which could have damaged their skin.
“Morphine patches were not being sited correctly on people's skin which could have placed them at risk of their skin breaking down.” from the report
Awareness of diabetes risks
seriousWhen snacks were offered, staff were not clear about which people had diabetes. Inspectors said this could have placed someone at risk.
“Staff were not clear about who was had a diagnosis of diabetes. This could have placed such a person at risk” from the report
- 01What has been done since the inspection to make sure people do not wait too long for call bells to be answered?
- 02How do you now check that people are moved to suitable seating and receive the right pressure care?
- 03What procedure is followed when a resident goes out for the day, so that all medicines are taken safely?
- 04How do staff identify people with diabetes or other dietary risks when offering snacks?
- 05How do you check that morphine patches and other medicines are given and positioned correctly?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with ratings given for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 December 2016 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 Fornham House Residential Home
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Fornham House Residential Home →
- December 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Fornham House Residential Home →
- March 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 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.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 December 2010.
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.