Fernbank Residential Home

We carried out this assessment to confirm that the previous rating of Good remains accurate. Where we found that practice has continued to meet a good standard, we have not reported in detail on these areas and have focused our findings on any areas where improvement was needed or where exceptional practice was found.

People were supported by staff who understood their safeguarding responsibilities, staff knew what to report and who to report safeguarding concerns to, both internally and outside of the service. Medicines were administered to people in a person-centred way and in line with best practice guidance. Risks to people’s health were assessed and mitigated, for example, catheter care and diabetes management. Risk assessments empowered people to remain independent with administering their own medicines and they had the freedom to go out and visit places of their choice. Incidents and accidents were robustly investigated, changes to practices and lessons learned were shared with staff and professional input was sought when required. Safety of the environment was a priority for the provider; equipment was regularly serviced and the premises was well maintained.

Staff were recruited safely, trained and supervised to support people. Staff had opportunities to train and develop in areas of interest to them. We received mixed feedback from some people and staff about staffing levels; some told us at busier times staffing could feel stretched. They had provided this feedback to the management team during meetings; the management team told us they were aware of the feedback and had an ongoing programme of recruitment. During our visit we observed staff to be attentive and responsive to people’s needs.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them moving into the service, regular reviews were completed. Nationally recognised tools were utilised to ensure accurate judgements were made to support care planning. Staff monitored people’s health needs and made timely contact with relevant professionals, for example, physio therapists were engaged with for people with reduced mobility. Staff obtained permission before supporting people and respected their wishes to decline. Consent was formally obtained and documented. Decision specific capacity assessments had been completed for those who required additional support to make safe choices.

People were treated with dignity and kindness, their privacy was respected and staff understood the importance of confidentiality. Staff were seen to offer choices to people and communicated in a way that suited them. Staff followed people’s care plans which outlined how to promote their independence. People’s autonomy, choice and control was further supported through equipment and technology. Staff spoke to and about people with compassion and respect; they completed daily notes in a dignified way. Activity sessions were well attended, we observed people were engaged and enjoyed group sessions and one to one time with activity staff. During our assessment people enjoyed carpet boules, live music entertainment and scrabble.

People received person-centred care by staff who knew them well. People were involved in planning their care and their wishes were documented in detail. People and their relatives were invited to provide feedback about the service; this was listened to and a ‘you said, we did’ document was shared with them which confirmed their comments were listened to. Regular group meetings were held with people and their relatives to further gather feedback. The system to address and respond to complaints worked well; complaints were dealt with swiftly and the registered manager checked they were completed to the complainant’s satisfaction. People continued to practice their faith as they wished, through in house services and attending online services.

Fernbank Residential Home was led by a committed registered manager who was well supported by the provider’s management team. They had created a culture of openness, people, their relatives and staff were given opportunities to share ideas; evidence confirmed managers listen to them. Staff regularly attended and contributed to meetings and provided formal feedback. The visions and values of the service were discussed with staff, staff contributed to the service’s ‘inclusion charter’. Adherence to their ethos was monitored through observation, feedback and supervision. Quality assurance processes provided a thorough overview of the service and identified continual improvement opportunities which were actioned to support good outcomes for people.

Staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions, they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.