- Care home
Fearnley House
Assessment report published 27 August 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Fearnley House is a care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 4 people living with a learning disability or autism. This assessment took place on 17 and 19 August 2026 and at the time of the assessment, 4 people were living at the service.
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.
People's experience of this service
We received positive feedback from relatives about their experience using the service. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI), to understand the experiences of people who were less able to communicate verbally.
Staff treated people with kindness and compassion. We observed a majority of interactions were warm and respectful. People were encouraged to maintain independence and participate in activities they enjoyed. Staff offered people choices wherever possible. However, improvements were needed to ensure dignity and person-centred interactions were consistently embedded across all aspects of care delivery.
Relatives told us staff were consistent in their approach to supporting people and showed people respect. They told us, “I can see how involved people are, there is affection and respect, Beautiful to see’’ and “’They treat [person] with the upmost respect.”
People were supported to participate in activities that reflected their interests and preferences. Records showed that people engaged in community activities, such as visiting cafes, shopping and leisure facilities.
Staff were committed to providing person-centred support and continued to explore new activities and experiences they may enjoy. One relative told us, “Most days they go out, [person] has an ice cream, uses the hot tub.”
People were assigned a key worker to review their care plans weekly. Relatives felt staff worked in partnership with them to decide what good outcomes looked like for people. Relatives told us, “We have had several meetings and [person] as well. I am involved.” and “I am called regularly and copied in emails.”
Care plans identified those who were involved in supporting people’s wellbeing. This helped staff to ensure people remained connected to those who were important to them. For example, records included significant dates, such as their families’ birthdays. Staff supported people to celebrate these occasions, such as purchasing gifts or making cards, where this reflected their wishes.
Care was centred around supporting people to live independently whilst maintaining their safety. For example, staff supported one person to prepare meals by cutting vegetables and using the cooker safely. Some people were also provided with adapted cutlery to eat their meals independently.
The provider had clear procedures were available on how people could make comments and complaints. Relatives told us they had been positive improvements since changes to the management team. They described leaders as visible, approachable and responsive to concerns.