CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Fiennes House Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found people were protected from avoidable harm, medicines were generally managed safely and there were enough staff. They did identify a missed one-to-one support requirement, previous medicine errors, inconsistent temperature checks and incomplete agency DBS recording.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this inspection, although inspectors observed kind, compassionate and respectful interactions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this inspection, although staff were found to understand people's individual communication needs, preferences and interests.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found approachable managers, supportive leadership, regular audits and an open culture where people, relatives and staff could give feedback.
What inspectors found, January 2023
SeeAbility - Fiennes House Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some records and staffing checks needing attention.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 21 December 2022 and 5 January 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spent time with 10 people, observed care, checked records and spoke with staff, relatives and a professional.
The home supports up to 12 people with learning disabilities, autism and sight loss. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices, follow interests and access the community. Staff understood people's communication needs and worked with health and social care professionals.
The home was rated Good overall, with Safe and Well-led also rated Good. Inspectors found some issues during the visits, including a missed one-to-one support requirement, inconsistent medicine temperature checks and incomplete recording of agency staff DBS details. The manager acted on the issues identified during the inspection.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed staff treating people with kindness, compassion, privacy and dignity. Staff took time to offer support and reassurance.
“Throughout the inspection we observed kind, relaxed, compassionate and caring interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, pursue hobbies and take part in activities in the local community. Staff used communication methods suited to each person.
“The service supported people to have the maximum possible choice and control over their own lives.” from the report
Staff knew people well
Staff understood people's individual needs, risks and communication methods. Relatives and professionals also described the care as person-centred.
“Staff, including agency staff, had a very good knowledge of the people they supported and were able to tell us about people's individual needs and risks.” from the report
Open and supportive management
Managers were visible and approachable. The home used audits, feedback and partnership working to monitor and improve care.
“Governance processes helped to hold staff to account, keep people safe, protect people's rights and provide good quality care and support.” from the report
One-to-one support was briefly missed
needs fixingOn the first inspection day, one person did not receive the one-to-one support stated in their plan. The manager discussed this with inspectors, reminded staff and began mealtime observations.
“On the first day of the inspection we saw one person not receiving one to one support as detailed within their plan” from the report
Recent medicine errors
needs fixingThe home had recently experienced medicine errors. These had been investigated and lessons were shared with staff.
“The service has recently gone through a period of medication errors.” from the report
Medicine temperature records
needs fixingMedicine storage temperature checks were not completed consistently during the first visit. They were being completed consistently by the second visit.
“Medication storage temperature checks at the service were found to be inconsistently completed during the first visit.” from the report
Agency staff records
needs fixingThe home was facing significant staffing challenges and used regular agency staff. Agency staff profiles did not always record whether a DBS check was in place, although the manager said checks had been completed.
“Agency profile sheets about the staff member were obtained. These did not always contain details regarding whether the agency staff member had a DBS in place.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every person's one-to-one support plan is followed at mealtimes?
- 02How are medicine storage temperatures checked and recorded each day?
- 03What changes were made after the recent medicine errors, and how do you check that lessons have been followed?
- 04How do you record DBS checks for agency staff before they work at the home?
- 05How are staffing levels managed while the home is facing staffing challenges?
This inspection focused on Safe and Well-led; the report did not give ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 January 2023 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 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some temporary staffing changes and a home larger than current best-practice recommendations.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 27 February 2020. One inspector met all 11 people living at the home, observed care and communication, checked care and medicine records, and spoke with staff, a relative and professionals.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, received their medicines on time, and were supported by trained staff who understood their needs.
The report describes warm relationships, personalised care and support for independence, communication, health, activities and community life. The home had systems to monitor quality and make improvements.
The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection published on 23 August 2017.
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw strong relationships between people and staff, with a happy atmosphere and shared enjoyment.
“People and staff had built strong relationships, cared about each other and enjoyed spending time together.” from the report
Personalised support
Care was organised around individual needs, preferences and communication styles.
“People received personalised care to meet their needs.” from the report
Communication and choice
Staff used tailored communication plans, signs, objects, pictures and specialist aids to help people express choices.
“People were supported to express their views, in ways relevant to their communication needs.” from the report
Independence
People were supported to learn daily living skills, work towards supported living and pursue employment.
“Staff were proactive in promoting people's independence.” from the report
Activities and community life
People took part in varied activities, trips, hobbies and local events, with support to stay active in the evening if they wished.
“People enjoyed a variety of social activities which included in house activities, trips out, social events, holidays and family visits.” from the report
Open leadership
Inspectors found strong leadership, regular quality checks and a culture that encouraged feedback and improvement.
“The service was well-led by the registered manager and their deputy.” from the report
Larger than current recommendations
minorThe report says the home is larger than current best-practice recommendations. Inspectors said the layout and personalised support reduced any negative impact, but this is worth discussing if a smaller setting is important to your relative.
“The service is larger than current best practice recommendations.” from the report
Recruitment records
minorThe provider's application form did not ask for enough detail about previous employment and reasons for leaving. Other recruitment checks were in place.
“The provider had a robust recruitment process, although the provider's application form needed to request more details about previous employment and reasons for leaving.” from the report
Recent staff changes
minorSome staff had left and some newly recruited staff had not yet started. The home was using regular agency staff alongside experienced staff to maintain continuity.
“Some staff had recently left and the registered manager had recruited new staff, some of whom had not yet started.” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff currently work here, and how often are agency staff used?
- 02How do you make sure agency and newly recruited staff understand my relative's communication, health and behaviour support needs?
- 03How do you make sure the home's size does not limit people's choice, privacy, independence or access to quieter spaces?
- 04What information do you now collect about applicants' previous employment and reasons for leaving?
- 05How will you support my relative to maintain relationships, take part in activities and work towards their personal goals?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; all ratings were assessed during this visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 March 2020 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 Fiennes House Residential Home
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Fiennes House Residential Home →
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Fiennes House Residential Home →
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 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
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.