You are here

Archived: Ferney Lee Services for Older People Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 27 May 2014
Date of Publication: 27 June 2014
Inspection Report published 27 June 2014 PDF


Inspection carried out on 27 May 2014

During a routine inspection

The inspection visit was carried out by one inspector. During the inspection, they spoke with the temporary unit manager, the senior care worker on duty, the home administrator, five people who lived at the home and two relatives, who were regular visitors. After the visit they spoke with a residential team leader and a kitchen assistant by telephone. The inspector also looked around the premises, observed staff interactions with people who lived at the home and looked at records. There were 29 people living at the home on the day of the visit.

The registered manager was on long term sick leave at the time of our inspection. The temporary unit manager told us they had been in post since February 2014.

When we visited Ferney Lee in January 2014 we found an assessment of need and risk assessments had not been carried out for one person who lived at the home. We asked the provider to make improvements. We went back on this visit to check whether improvements had been made.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected.

We used the information to answer the five key questions we always ask;

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We found the premises and grounds at the home were not adequately maintained. This meant people who lived at the home were not living in safe surroundings that promoted their wellbeing. We have asked the provider to make improvements.

Staff we spoke with told us, �The whole place needs updating. For example when you arrive at the home you see the outside all needs painting. I try to keep my eyes closed.�

There were systems in place to deal with emergencies and people were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment. We saw that people who lived at the home looked clean and well-cared-for.

There were enough staff to meet the needs of the people who lived at the home. Staff were suitably qualified and had the skills and knowledge needed to support people. One person told us, �The staff are very good, we have a laugh.� Staff told us, �We have enough staff but it�s always busy, especially during the mornings.� and �It would be nice to have more time to spend with people.�

This showed us people were protected from avoidable harm.

Is the service effective?

People and relatives we spoke with told us the care provided at the home was very good, and their treatment and support needs were being met.

From our observations and from speaking with staff, people who lived at the home and their relatives we found staff knew people well and were aware of peoples care and support needs.

One person, who was in a wheelchair, told us, �I want to stand up and walk. I�m having physiotherapists and an occupational therapist assessment. I�m hoping they�ll sort me out. Everything else is alright.� Another person, in the rehabilitation unit, told us, �I�ve walked to the sink and back this morning; I couldn�t have done that a week since.�

This showed us that peoples� care treatment and support at the home achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life for the people that lived there.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff who obviously knew people well. We saw that care workers were patient and encouraging when supporting people.

People who lived at the home and relatives told us they were happy with the care at the home and people were supported by kind and attentive staff. Our observations during the visit confirmed this. One person told us, �It�s not bad at all. The food is reasonable and the staff are all very good. There�s nothing bad at all� another person said, �I�ve got everything I need, and I�ve got no complaints.�

One relative we spoke with said, �We�re very pleased with the care here. X (temporary manager�s name) is extremely professional. We were very anxious for dad to be able to come back here after he had been in hospital.�

The care workers we spoke with told us they felt confident the service provided to people who lived at the home was good and they had a good staff team. Comments from staff included, �I enjoy my job; I really enjoy working there,� �Yes, I think the care is very good there for people,� �It�s a pity they�re not taking on more permanent residents. One person had been in a transitional bed for 12 months and has to move out, we�re all upset� and �We�ve got a lot of care staff that really do care.�

When we looked around the home we saw people�s bedrooms had been personalised and contained personal items such as family photographs and furniture.

This meant staff treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. Staff told us they respected peoples� privacy and dignity and encouraged people who lived at the home to be independent.

Is the service responsive?

We saw the service carried out an assessment of needs before people moved in to the home. We saw people�s preferences, interests and diverse needs were taken into consideration.

We looked at three peoples� care records. We found care and support was provided in accordance with peoples� wishes. One person told us, �They�re getting me some fish I asked for; some gurnets.� A relative we spoke with said, �They�ve moved dad to a bigger room with a special bed to accommodate his mobility needs.�

People had access to activities and were supported to maintain relationships with their friends and relatives. We saw some people continued to pursue previous community involvement and social interests. For example one person told us they liked to go and watch the cricket in the summer at the local pitch. The manager told us this person�s son had bought him a season ticket so that he could do this.

This meant the home was organised so that it met peoples� needs.

Is the service well-led?

People were protected against the risks of inappropriate or unsafe care because the provider had effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service people received.

The temporary unit manager told us they had been in post since February 2014, as the registered manager at the home was on long term sick leave.

Staff we spoke with told us they were clear about their responsibilities and felt well supported by the temporary unit manager and the staff team. They told us their views were taken into consideration. One care worker said, �It works a lot better at the moment with X (manager�s name); they�re a very good manager. We all get to know what�s happening.� Another care worker said, �We have supervisions and staff meetings. The temporary manager is very approachable and has an open door policy.� This showed us the service was being well-led, while the temporary manager was in position.

What we saw and heard on the inspection showed us the leadership and management of the home assured the delivery of high quality care and promoted an open and fair culture.