CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Ferns
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Staff understood safeguarding procedures, risks were assessed and managed, medicines were handled safely, and staffing matched people's assessed needs.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received planned support based on their needs. Staff had relevant training, people were supported with food and healthcare, and consent and best-interest processes were followed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. They understood people's preferences and non-verbal communication and supported independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, likes and preferences. People were supported with communication, family relationships, holidays, activities and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found approachable management, open communication and effective quality checks. The service investigated incidents and acted on learning.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some further improvements needed around choice and communication.
This was an unannounced inspection on 8 October 2019. One inspector visited the home, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care plans, medicine records, recruitment records and management documents.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, received their medicines safely, and had enough trained staff to support their needs.
Inspectors found strong, trusting relationships between people and staff. Care was personalised, people were supported to make choices, and their health, nutrition, activities and relationships were considered.
The home was larger than the current best practice guidance for learning disability services. Inspectors said this had not negatively affected people, but identified further improvements in giving people choices over all parts of their care, including communication.
Kind and trusted relationships
Inspectors found that staff knew people very well and supported them patiently. This helped people feel safe enough to share personal experiences and express their views.
“People received care from exceptional staff that had care and compassion for the people they supported.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Recruitment checks were completed, staffing levels matched assessed needs, and staff were trained to manage medicines safely.
“There were enough staff deployed to provide people with their individual care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, preferences and communication needs. People were supported to take part in activities, holidays and relationships that mattered to them.
“Care plans reflected peoples' likes, dislikes and preferences.” from the report
Strong management checks
Management carried out detailed audits and investigated incidents. Inspectors saw that improvements were made when errors were found.
“There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Home size
minorThe home was registered for up to 10 people, which is larger than the best practice guidance mentioned in the report. Inspectors said the building and the way it was run reduced any negative impact.
“The home did not meet the best practice principles of Registering the Right Support, which suggests that learning disability services should usually accommodate six people or less.” from the report
More choice and better communication
needs fixingInspectors said people should always be given choices over all aspects of their care. They also identified improved communication as an area for further improvement.
“Further improvements would include ensuring people are always given choices over all aspects of their care, including improved communication.” from the report
Access to shared facilities
minorThere were limited opportunities for people to access some facilities independently, such as making their own drinks. Staff were available to provide support according to people's abilities and preferences.
“There were limited opportunities for people to access facilities within the home, for example to make their own drinks.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure my relative is offered choices about every part of their care?
- 02How do you communicate with people who cannot communicate verbally, and how do you record what they prefer?
- 03How can residents access shared facilities, such as the kitchen, and what can they do independently?
- 04How many people currently live here, and how does the size of the home affect daily life and personal attention?
- 05How do you use feedback, complaints and incidents to make improvements?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, and all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 November 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, April 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with strong management and support for people with learning disabilities.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 March 2017. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff, managers and the provider. They observed care and checked care plans, staff files, medicines, training, staffing, complaints and quality checks.
The home supported up to 10 people with learning disabilities, and eight people lived there at the inspection. Inspectors found personalised care plans, regularly reviewed risk assessments, safe medicines systems and enough staff to meet people's needs.
Staff were described as kind, friendly and supportive. People were involved in choices about their care, food, activities and daily lives. The home helped people access healthcare, maintained links with relatives and responded to complaints.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found the service met the relevant standards at the time of this inspection.
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, wishes, communication styles, interests and preferences. Staff used this information to provide individual support.
“People had care plans that were personalised to their individual needs and wishes.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw positive interactions and found that staff treated people with kindness, compassion, privacy and dignity.
“People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
The home had trained staff, medicines records and systems for safe administration. Staffing levels supported people safely throughout the day.
“There was enough staff to keep people safe and to meet their needs.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff were encouraged to give feedback. Inspectors found that the manager listened and that quality checks were used to improve the service.
“People using the service were encouraged and enabled to provide feedback about their experience of care and about how the service could be improved.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are people's Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications progressing, and have the outstanding external assessments now taken place?
- 02How often are care plans and risk assessments reviewed, and how are families told about important changes?
- 03How do you check that medicines are still being given safely and recorded correctly?
- 04What activities are available now, and how are people supported to choose activities that match their interests?
- 05How can relatives give feedback or raise a complaint, and how is the response recorded?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the overall service and all five CQC questions, including observations, discussions with people and staff, and checks of care, staffing, medicines and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 April 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 Ferns
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 June 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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of North Northamptonshire
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
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.