You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 June 2018

We carried out a comprehensive inspection of Ferndale on 17 and 21 May 2018. This was an ¿announced inspection. We told the provider two days before our initial inspection visit that we ¿would be coming. This was because we wanted to make sure people and staff would be at the ¿service to speak with us. ¿

Ferndale provides care and accommodation for up to three people who have autism. It is part of ¿the Orchard Vale Trust, a charity which offers care and support to people with learning disabilities ¿and autism living in Somerset. At the time of the inspection two people were living at the service; ¿both had their own self-contained accommodation.¿

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered ¿with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ¿¿‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in ¿the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. ¿

¿ ¿

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the ¿Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, ¿promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the ¿service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.¿

The service was last inspected in January 2017. At this inspection, we found four breaches of the ¿Health and Social Care Act 2008. This was due to governance systems not being adhered to by ¿not recording accidents, monitoring the service properly and not carrying out regular reviews of ¿people’s care. Risks to people were not being monitored regularly. There were restrictive control ¿measures in place for one person, which had not been adequately assessed. A financial ¿agreement had been made for one person without evidence of the person’s consent. At this latest ¿inspection we found the required improvements had been made.¿

We spoke with both people who lived at the home. As these discussions were limited, we also ¿used our observations and our discussions with people’s relatives and staff to help form our ¿judgements.

¿

Staff understood people’s needs and provided the care and support they needed. The home was ¿a safe place for people. People living at the home told us they were happy with their service.

¿

People interacted well with staff. Staff were skilled at communicating with people and in ¿identifying any changes in people’s mood. People made choices about their own lives. They were ¿part of their community and were encouraged to be as independent as they could be.

¿

Staffing levels were good. People received good support from health and social care ¿professionals. Staff had built close, trusting relationships with people over time. One relative said ¿their family member “Could not live in a more caring place than Ferndale. Kindness and ¿understanding are very much part of their [meaning staff’s] every day work.”

¿

People, and those close to them, were involved in planning and reviewing their care and support. ¿There was a close relationship and good communication with people’s relatives. Relatives felt ¿their views were listened to and acted on.

¿

Staff were well supported and well trained. Staff spoke highly of the care they were able to ¿provide to people. One staff member said, “It’s a very good service; very tailored to each person’s ¿needs. There’s always a positive atmosphere.”

¿

There was a management structure in the home which provided clear lines of responsibility and ¿accountability. All staff worked hard to provide the best level of care possible to people. The aims ¿of the service were well defined and adopted by the staff team.

¿

There were effective quality assurance processes in place to monitor care and safety and plan ¿ongoing improvements. There were systems in place to share information and seek people’s ¿views

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 June 2018

The service was safe.

�

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were �identified and managed well.

�

There were sufficient numbers of suitably trained staff to keep people safe �and meet their individual needs. Staff recruitment was safely managed.

�

People were supported with their medicines in a safe way by staff who had �been trained.�

Effective

Good

Updated 9 June 2018

The service was effective.

�

People made decisions about their lives and were cared for in line with �their preferences and choices.

�

People were well supported by health and social care professionals. This �made sure they received appropriate care.

�

Staff had a good knowledge of each person and how to meet their needs. �They received on-going training to make sure they had the skills and �knowledge to provide effective care to people.�

Caring

Good

Updated 9 June 2018

The service was caring.

�

Staff were kind and patient and treated people with dignity and respect.

�

People were supported to keep in touch with their friends and relations.

�

People, and those close to them, were involved in decisions about the �running of the home as well as their own care.�

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 June 2018

The service was responsive.

�

People, and those close to them, were involved in planning and reviewing �their care. People received care and support which was responsive to their �changing needs.

�

People chose a lifestyle which suited them. They used community facilities �and were supported to follow and develop their personal interests.

�

People, and those close to them, shared their views on the care they �received and on the home more generally. Their views were used to �improve the service.�

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 June 2018

The service was well-led. �

There were clear lines of accountability and responsibility within the �management team.

�

The aims of the service were well defined and these were adopted by staff.

�

Staff worked in partnership with other professionals to make sure people �received appropriate support to meet their needs. People were part of their �local community.

�

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to make sure that �any areas for improvement were identified and addressed.�