CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Ferns
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, effective and caring support, but concerns about person-centred care, privacy and how the home was managed.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 13 December 2018 and 7 January 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, training and employment records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Caring. People appeared comfortable and staff were kind and respectful. Inspectors found good safeguarding systems, enough staff, safe medicines administration overall, suitable training and support for people to communicate and make choices.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement because Responsive and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. Care plans were not always up to date, records did not always explain incidents or important daily events, and some routines and language felt service-led rather than like ordinary home life. The home had been rated Good at its previous inspection in March 2016.
Positive relationships
People appeared relaxed and comfortable. Inspectors saw friendly interactions and relatives said they had confidence in the support.
“It was clear that people felt relaxed and comfortable at the home and the use of appropriate humour helped create a friendly atmosphere.” from the report
Progress and independence
Some people gained confidence, tried new activities and worked towards personal goals. The report describes progress towards more independent community living.
“People had grown in confidence and tried new things since spending time at The Ferns.” from the report
Communication and choice
Staff used communication methods suited to each person, including signs, symbols and pictures. People were supported to understand information and make choices.
“People were communicated with and supported to express their views and helped to make decisions in a way that best enabled them to understand and express themselves.” from the report
Staff support and training
Staff had regular supervision, training, team meetings and appraisals. New staff completed a structured induction.
“Staff received support with daily briefings, supervision meetings, regular training, team meetings and annual appraisals.” from the report
Care plans were out of date
needs fixingStaff knew people's current needs, but care plans did not always reflect changes or show the skills people were currently working on.
“The care planning process was lagging far behind changes in people's support and therefore was not always able to provide current guidance for staff.” from the report
Privacy and institutional routines
needs fixingSome people, including people living at the home, were checked every 30 minutes overnight without an identified risk requiring this. Inspectors said this could intrude on reasonable privacy.
“This is a service based rather than person centred approach, which risked invading people's reasonably expected privacy.” from the report
The home did not always feel like home
needs fixingThe home was being used for permanent living, short breaks and day-service visits. Inspectors found that the constant change of people and busy periods affected the homely experience.
“Whilst there was a nice atmosphere in the building it did not feel like people's home and at peak times it was very busy with lots of distractions.” from the report
Records did not always explain incidents
needs fixingIncident records did not always record what a person might have been trying to communicate. This could reduce learning about people's needs and how support should change.
“When an incident occurred at the home staff had not always reflected on or recorded what the person may be trying to communicate.” from the report
Some medicines records were incomplete
needs fixingTwo records showed that a medicine had not been given, but did not explain why. Inspectors recommended reviewing the codes used on medicines records.
“On two occasions in the sample of records we checked a medication had not been administered, and appropriate records had not been kept to provide information as to why it had not been administered.” from the report
- 01How have you updated each person's care plan so it reflects their current needs, progress and goals?
- 02Which overnight checks are still carried out, and what individual risk does each check address?
- 03What has changed to make the home feel more like a permanent home and less busy or distracting?
- 04How do you record why a medicine was not given, and what action has been taken to improve these records?
- 05How do daily notes and incident records now capture what each person is communicating and what matters most in their day?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with visits to the home and the provider's offices to review records. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 March 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.
Every inspection of The Ferns
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2019Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 January 2011.
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
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Wirral
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 £1,230 a week. 37 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.