Fernbank Residential Home

Updated 24 March 2026

Dates of assessment: 30 March to 07 April 2026. Fernbank Residential Home is a care home providing support to older people and people living with varying stages of dementia.

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.

Updated 24 March 2026

People and their relatives spoke positively about the staff. A person noted, “I am happy, ahh staff are wonderful with a generally good approach. They pop in to check I’m ok but don’t over do it.” Another person told us about how staff helped them retain their independence and said, “I do like it here, I am happy. I can lay in and watch TV. I can do what I like, and I do what I like. They help me when I need help. I go to my wardrobe and staff pull out what I want, they help me dress up.” A relative said, “Staff are very friendly. There is a very nice atmosphere there. They arrive at work with a smile. The morale is good. Really polite and really friendly.”

People told us they felt safe and content at the service. Comments included, “I feel safe, the staff are always available to help. They know me well and are friendly.” Another person said, “I feel safe because I have everyone around.” A relative said, “Staff are responsive and keep me informed about any health changes or falls.”

People told us they were happy with the way their medicines were managed, a person said, “I’m happy with the way my medication is given; it’s regular.” Another person described their independence with medicines and said, “If you can manage your own medication, you do. I’ve had no issues with self‑administration.”

People were supported to personalise their space with ornaments, small pieces of furniture, pictures, some people proudly displayed past medals and trophies in their space. A person spoke about their room and said, “I think the building is quite nifty. I love my room and have bits and bobs in there.” Another person told us, “There is a private garden and a large courtyard, which is nice in the summer. There is a conservatory for visitors which I use when family come.” A relative said, “It’s lovely. Last year they had a refurbishment. The dining room is lovely. It smells lovely in there. I asked them to put shelving up and [person] has all their ornaments on it and can see their memories.”

People enjoyed the meals served at the service; they all provided positive feedback about the choices and quality of the food. Dietary requirements were known by kitchen staff and included in people’s care records. A relative told us, “They cut up [person’s] food. It’s easier when cut up for [person], staff picked that up. [Person] has a beaker with a lid on for their tea. There is a jug of water by their bed that they can reach.” A person said, “I sympathise with the kitchen staff as we have different requirements. They cater for all of us.” Some people told us they had fridges in their room for drinks and snacks.

People described their involvement in the service, they commented on the opportunities to provide feedback and said, “We have a meeting where they ask for feedback and ideas. I go to all but listen to others.” A relative said, “I’ve not complained at all. Staff couldn’t do enough for [person]. There’s no problem in communications with them. If you ring up there is always someone and we always get a reply.”

During meetings people were asked for suggestions of activities. People told us they enjoyed the variety and that they were able to do as they pleased, some comments included, “I’m happy with the activities, I like carpet bowling.” And, “I like to go out walking, I go with staff, friends and family, I can generally go when I want.”

People had timely access to health and social care professionals when needed, staff and managers had good working relationships with partners in care. Staff monitored people and arranged health appointments. A person told us, “They have a doctor do the rounds every week. I can ask to go on the round, but they notice if I’m not myself.”

People told us they felt the service was well led, all people knew the registered manager and management team by name and provided positive feedback about them. Some comments included, “Any complaints I would go to [registered manager] she’s a lovely lady. She pops in to see me.” And, “[Registered manager] is an excellent lady.” Relatives comments included, “They have a residents meeting where you can go and highlight any concerns. You can speak individually or as a group. There are notes shared of the meetings. There is a newsletter once a quarter. I’m completely happy with them 10/10.” Another said, “[Registered manager] is caring and is responsive to any questions. [Staff name] gets in touch on any frontline care issues. There is a good management information chain. From what I’ve seen, I don’t see any kind of service disruption or service inefficiencies. The service is well co-ordinated.”

Some people could not directly tell us about their experience. Throughout our visit we observed care that was respectful, caring, and supportive.