The Ferns

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People received personalised care that was tailored to their individual wishes and preferences. People and their relatives were involved in the development of their care and support plans, and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of how to deliver care in line with people’s wishes.

These findings were further supported by feedback received from relatives, who confirmed care was provided in a way that reflected people’s individual preferences. One relative told us, “They follow [Name] care plan. They divert [Name]when he is gets distressed and anxious. They try sensory things like earphones and music.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The provider demonstrated an understanding of potential barriers to accessing healthcare and supported people to express their anxieties in a safe and supportive manner. For example, people’s bedrooms were adapted to reduce risks and ensure individuals who were prone to self‑harm were protected during periods of distress.

Reasonable adjustments were made to healthcare appointments to create a supportive environment and engage people in ways that best met their individual needs. People had hospital passports in place, which provided personalised information to support other healthcare professionals to understand individuals’ preferences, including their likes and dislikes.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Some people’s communication needs and preferred styles were documented; however, we identified one individual who used picture exchange communication system (PECS) as a communication tool, which was not being used.

We observed people being served meals without evidence that they were offered a choice or knew what was on offer. Staff told us that meals were cooked according to what was available on the day, and there were no effective means of communicating meal options or supporting people to make choices.

However, in some instances, staff used social stories using images and symbols, to support people with activities such as making choices and preparing for healthcare appointments, including hospital visits. The provider had an accessible information policy in place to support.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People were kept informed of plans for the day, including which staff would be on duty, to aid individual daily routines.

People’s relatives told us they knew who to speak with to raise concerns and complaints. A relative told us, “Any concerns are dealt with straight away. There are no problems. I have only had to speak to the manager three times in all the time [Name] has lived at The Ferns.” The Managers are supportive. I’ve not had to raise one concern. I’ve not got one negative thing to say. I have one hundred percent faith in the management.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Relatives confirmed their family members had equal access to services and were free from discrimination based on their protected characteristics. When people could not express their health and treatment needs, relatives were engaged in discussions which included health, welfare and mental health needs. These discussions helped form people’s care and support plans.

The registered manager explained how they had provided consistent and ongoing support to an individual, by using a stable staff team. As a result, the person’s confidence and independence had improved, which led to a reduction in the number of staff required to support them.

The registered manager told us this approach had enabled the person to attend social activities and healthcare appointments with fewer staff members, demonstrating the positive impact of consistent support on outcomes for the individual.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. People were supported by staff who ensured that reasonable adjustments were in place to enable them to live fulfilling lives and actively participate in the running of their home.

Staff acted on guidance provided by external health and social care professionals to implement improvements to care delivery, including transitions to other services. Staff worked closely relatives to gather feedback and tailor care and support to individual needs, ensuring positive outcomes.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Although people had hospital passports in place to inform healthcare professionals about their needs and preferences, we found limited evidence of the involvement of other health and social care professionals who would ordinarily support individuals who lacked capacity to make significant decisions, particularly in relation to transitions.

This was largely due to The Ferns operating primarily as a care pathway service. As a result, people were frequently in the process of moving on, which impacted the level of multi‑disciplinary involvement in longer‑term transition planning.