Fearnley House

This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disabilityrespect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

Leaders promoted a positive and inclusive culture that placed people at the centre of their care. Safe recruitment practices were in place. Records showed the provider completed appropriate employment checks and ensured staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs.

Staff received regular supervision and development opportunities to continually improve performance. One staff member told us, “The management team are lovely, supportive and give a chance for everyone to learn. If you have concerns, they are always open for suggestions.”

The provider had systems in place to review and learn from incidents. Staff understood their responsibilities for reporting concerns. Lessons learned were shared through supervisions and team meetings. Managers maintained oversight to help reduce the risk of similar incidents occurring again. For example, following a medicines administration error, the provider reviewed the circumstances and introduced a second staff member to witness medicines administration to provide additional oversight.

Medicines were administered safely, with systems in place for storing and administering medicines. Care plans contained clear guidance for staff on when ‘as required’ medicines should be administered. This included information about how each person communicated pain, discomfort or distress. Staff described how they responded to people’s non-verbal cues, such as facial expressions, body language, gestures and changes in behaviour when assessing whether medicines may be required.

We found that records contained personalised guidance outlining different approaches to take, depending on how the person presented and their individual needs at the time. Staff worked closely with a range of healthcare professionals and ensured people attended appointments to support their ongoing health and wellbeing.

Care plans reflected people’s individual histories and preferences. Risks were consistently identified and documented across all areas of people’s care plans. Staff followed recognised best practice to meet people’s nutritional needs. For example, where people were assessed to be at risk of choking, staff ensured food was prepared to the correct consistency and texture.

Governance systems provided effective oversight of quality, safety and performance within the home. Leaders completed audits and monitoring to identify risks to people using the service. Equipment and facilities were regularly checked to ensure they remained safe. Records showed actions identified from these checks were monitored and completed promptly.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We found that staff and leaders worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen.