CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Fernes
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, risks were assessed and medicines were administered safely. Inspectors noted some lengthy call bell times, although staff responded promptly during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received suitable food, healthcare and support from trained staff. The home supported choice and followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- Staff were exceptionally kind, compassionate and respectful. They knew people well and often went beyond normal expectations to support their wishes and quality of life.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care and activities were generally personalised and met people's needs. Some care records needed updating, and inspectors saw limited social engagement for people on Memory Lane on one day.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had strong leadership, positive staff morale and regular quality checks. Managers used feedback, incidents and audits to identify improvements.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding caring; inspectors found kind, safe care but some care records and social engagement needed attention.
Inspectors visited without notice on 4 and 6 February 2020. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals. They observed care and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and quality records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led. It was rated Outstanding for Caring. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, good training, personalised care and strong management.
People were treated with exceptional kindness and respect. Staff supported people's independence, choices, activities and end of life care. The home was clean and designed to meet the needs of older people, including people living with dementia.
There were some areas to improve. A small number of care plans were not fully up to date or did not give enough guidance. Inspectors also saw limited social engagement on Memory Lane on one day and noted some lengthy call bell times.
Exceptionally caring staff
Inspectors found that staff consistently treated people with warmth, dignity and respect. Staff also supported personal wishes and helped people enjoy meaningful experiences.
“People were supported by exceptionally kind, caring and compassionate staff who consistently promoted people's dignity, privacy and independence.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, recruitment checks were completed and medicines were administered safely. Staff knew how to manage risks and report concerns.
“There were enough staff available to keep people safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Suitable environment
The home was clean and offered different spaces for socialising or quiet time. Memory Lane had features designed to help people living with dementia find their way and remain engaged.
“All areas of the home were maintained to an exceptionally high standard and there were a variety of areas for people to choose where they spent their time.” from the report
Personalised food and care
Staff learned about people's preferences and routines. Food choices and special diets were provided, and care plans usually gave staff useful personal information.
“People's care plans detailed what was important to them and how they wanted to be supported.” from the report
Strong leadership
People, relatives, professionals and staff described the home as well run. Audits, meetings and improvement plans were used to monitor quality and make changes.
“There was a strong emphasis on continually striving to improve the service and outcomes for people.” from the report
Care plans needed updating
needs fixingSome care records did not contain current information. One person also lacked clear guidance for staff about how to respond when their behaviour could challenge others or staff.
“However, we found some instances where people's care records could be improved.” from the report
Limited engagement on Memory Lane
minorInspectors saw little social engagement for people living on Memory Lane on the first day. The manager said this was unusual and agreed to keep it under review.
“Despite the full activities on offer for people, we observed a lack of social engagement for people who lived on memory lane on the first day of the inspection.” from the report
Some lengthy call bell times
minorThe home monitored call bell times and inspectors saw staff respond promptly during the visit. However, some records showed lengthy waits, so this needed continued monitoring.
“We noted some lengthy call bells times.” from the report
End of life preferences
minorEnd of life care was described as compassionate and competent, but the manager recognised that care plans could record people's end of life preferences in more detail.
“The registered manager was aware that care plans could be further developed to ensure people's preferences for end of life care were reflected.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that every care plan is current and gives staff clear guidance about behaviour that may challenge others?
- 02What activities and one-to-one engagement are available for people living on Memory Lane, and how do you check that they are taking part?
- 03What have your recent call bell audits shown, and what action do you take when waits are lengthy?
- 04How are each person's end of life wishes recorded and reviewed with them and their family?
- 05How do you check that the improvements promised during the inspection have been completed and sustained?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, the premises and the care provided; all five ratings were assessed at this visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 April 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.
What inspectors found, August 2017
The Fernes was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some liberty safeguard applications still outstanding.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 12 July 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, visitors, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, complaints, accidents, recruitment files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training, good food and clean surroundings. Staff knew people well and treated them with patience, kindness and respect.
This was the first inspection since the home was newly registered in July 2016. Inspectors noted that several applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were still waiting for a decision, although they found that most might not have been needed. This was discussed with the manager.
Safe staffing and risk management
Inspectors found enough staff for the people living at the home. Staff understood individual risks, and accidents and incidents were reviewed for learning.
“There were sufficient staff deployed to meet the needs of people.” from the report
Kind and skilled staff
Staff were described as calm, kind and gentle. They understood people's histories and preferences and communicated well with people living with dementia.
“Staff showed advanced skills in communicating with people who lived with dementia.” from the report
Personalised care and choice
Care plans included people's needs, likes, dislikes and personal history. People and relatives were involved in care decisions, and people were encouraged to remain independent.
“Care plans in place for people reflected their identified needs and the associated risks.” from the report
Food and daily life
People had a choice of freshly prepared food, snacks and drinks. Activities included social events, music, gardening, exercise and trips, with people encouraged to choose what they wanted.
“People received a wide variety of nutritious meals in line with their needs and preferences.” from the report
Strong management checks
The home had audits covering medicines, care records, infection control, equipment and fire safety. Inspectors saw that identified actions had been completed.
“Robust audits and systems were in place to ensure the safety and welfare of people in the home.” from the report
Outstanding liberty safeguard applications
needs fixingSeveral applications were still awaiting decisions from the local authority. Inspectors also found that most of these applications might not have been needed, so the home was asked to seek clearer guidance.
“several others remained outstanding with the local authority.” from the report
- 01What is the current position on the liberty safeguard applications that were outstanding at the inspection?
- 02How do you decide how many staff are needed if more people move into the home?
- 03How are changes in a person's risks, health or behaviour recorded and shared with staff?
- 04How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and making decisions about care?
- 05How do you check that activities continue to reflect each person's interests and choices?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and providing the home's first rating since it was newly registered in July 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 August 2017 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 The Fernes
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 July 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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.