You are here

Archived: The Fearnes Good

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 24 February 2015

We undertook an unannounced inspection to The Fearnes on 14 and 19 November 2014. The Fearnes is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 40 older people, many of whom are living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 37 people living there.

At the last inspection in April 2014 the service was meeting the regulations inspected. There was a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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 Socail Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were kept safe and free from harm and were treated with dignity and respect by a caring, professional team of staff. Staff demonstrated a good awareness of ensuring people were kept safe and were able to explain how they would report suspected abuse.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities in regard to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). These safeguards aim to protect people living in care homes and hospitals from being inappropriately deprived of their liberty. These safeguards can only be used when there is no other way of supporting a person safely. DoLS applications were correctly completed and submitted to the local authority.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. People’s needs were met in a timely manner with people not having to wait lengthy periods for call bells to be answered. The registered manager told us they were recruiting a further three staff. Staff told us once the three additional staff were employed they felt there were enough staff employed to run the home effectively. Suitable employment checks had been completed before staff commenced their employment.

Staff felt well supported by the management team and involved in the running of the home. They said they took an active part in the team meetings and felt comfortable to raise any ideas or concerns. There was a system in place to ensure staff received relevant training.

People were treated with respect and dignity by staff who demonstrated a caring, patient and friendly manner. People’s privacy was maintained, with staff providing discreet support and guidance. Staff knocked on people’s bedroom doors before entering bedrooms and explained clearly to people what they needed to do in a sensitive and considerate manner before supporting people with their care needs. Staff appeared to know the people who lived in the home well and spent time sitting and talking with them, ensuring they enjoyed their day.

People’s needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered to meet their needs. For example, records showed people who had been assessed as having a high risk of skin damage were referred to the local specialist healthcare professionals. Staff had followed the guidance given by the specialist to ensure people’s skin integrity was maintained. Staff were able to discuss individual people and demonstrated a good knowledge of their care needs. Staff told us what activities people enjoyed doing and how people were supported to take part in activities they preferred. People told us they enjoyed the trips out in the mini bus and helping to make cakes. We saw photographs on display of people enjoying outings such as trips to Christchurch Quay and The New Forest.

The provider had a complaints procedure and people knew how to complain if they needed to. People felt if they needed to complain they would be listened to and any complaint acted upon. The management team had acknowledged complaints, and investigated and notified all parties as to their outcome.

The provider completed a variety of weekly, monthly and annual audits to check the quality of their service, such as; infection control, dementia care and dining experiences. Where actions had been highlighted the provider had put systems in place to ensure good practice was communicated to staff. For example, the infection control audit highlighted good practice needed to be shared regarding handwashing, the provider then ensured this topic was a regular agenda item at the staff meetings.

The home expressed a warm and friendly culture with staff stating they felt they worked well as a team and supported each other. One person told us, “I’m very happy here, the staff are so friendly and always cheer me up”.

Inspection areas



Updated 24 February 2015

The service was safe. The provider had a policy relating to safeguarding people from abuse and staff were aware of the contents of the policy and who to contact should they suspect abuse.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably trained staff to keep people safe and meet their needs.

Procedures were in place in cases of emergency, including fire, and risks were monitored effectively.



Updated 24 February 2015

The service was effective. People received care from staff who were trained and supported effectively.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and people were asked for their consent before care or treatment was given to them. The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities in relation to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and had made applications, which the local authority were in the process of assessing

People were offered a wide variety of choice of food and drink. Hot and cold drinks were regularly offered throughout the day and people were assisted to eat and drink as needed.

People accessed the services of healthcare professionals when they were required.



Updated 24 February 2015

The service was caring. Staff treated people with consideration, respect and dignity.

Staff respected people’s privacy.

Staff were aware of people’s preferences and offered people choices with what they preferred to wear, where they liked to eat their meals and what menu choice they wanted.



Updated 24 February 2015

The service was responsive.

People received care that met their individuals needs. People’s needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered to meet their needs.

The provider had a complaints procedure and people knew who to and how to complain. People felt their complaint would be listened to and acted upon.



Updated 24 February 2015

The service was well led. People felt comfortable to share their views and were confident they would be listened to if they raised any concerns or suggestions.

There was a clear management structure within the home and staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Staff felt well supported to carry out their roles and stated they worked effectively as a close team.

The provider had a range of audits in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and kept up to date with changes in practice.