Fernleigh Court Care and Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last inspection we rated this key question Requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

At our lastinspectionthe provider was in breach of the legal regulation in relation tosafe care and treatment. Improvements were found at this inspection and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 72 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. A learning culture was promoted at the service in ways such as staff handovers and meetings. The registered manager reviewed incidents and accidents to see where lessons could be learned. People’s care plans and risk assessments were updated based on these reviews if necessary. Staff told us they discussed incidents and changed the way they supported people if necessary. Any learning from incidents was made clear to staff on the system they used to access people’s care plans and records. A relative told us, ‘‘I know the staff notice if things change and will sort things out. They made sure [equipment] was in place when [family member] needed it.’’

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. Staff contacted professionals such as GP’s or psychologists if people needed support. If professionals gave advice that needed to be followed, this was communicated and shared with the staff team. The management and staff team had also developed ‘passports’ for people to take with them to appointments which gave those supporting them essential information about how they communicated and what was important to them. One person told us, ‘‘[Staff] help me go to the doctors and stuff like that.’’ A relative said, ‘‘[Staff] recognise if [family member] needs help from other services and organise the appointments.’’

People and their relatives told us they/ their family member were safe living at the service. Staff were trained in safeguarding and knew what signs may indicate potential abuse and how to report concerns to external partners such as the local authority or CQC. Safeguarding concerns were reported, and any actions were taken seriously by the management and staff team. One person said, ‘‘I like it because the staff are nice here.’’ Another person showed us how safe they felt by taking us to see the different areas of their home and asking for staff support without hesitation when they needed it. A relative told us, ‘‘[Family member] is definitely safe and I know what to do if I felt they were not.’’

The provider worked well with people to understand and manage risks. However, staff were not always recording the care and support they gave to people in sufficient detail. This was particularly the case for recording fluids for some people who may be at risk of dehydration. We were assured this was a recording issue as people had not experienced poor outcomes in relation to their health in this area. However, this level of recording may make it harder for people’s care to be monitored over longer periods to see if they needed further support. Risk assessments and care plans were detailed for the most part and gave good guidance about how to support people to take risks safely. However, people did not have specific care plans in place for health conditions such as epilepsy and all of this information was recorded in other parts of the care plans meaning this information may be more difficult to locate for new staff.

Staff knew how to keep people safe and no one at the service had experienced poor pressure area care or issues with their nutrition. We observed staff supporting people to use equipment such as mobility aids safely. Staff told us what they would do if they felt care plans or risk assessments needed changing. A person told us, ‘‘[Staff] help me use the equipment I need to move by myself. They are very careful when they do this.’’ A relative told us, ‘‘[Family member] has constant supervision from the staff team and they are always with them when they walk independently to make sure, they do not fall. They have not had any falls or a long time.’’

The provider detected and managed all potential risks in the care environment. The environment was safe. Staff kept equipment people used safe and in good working order and carried out checks of the building to help make sure it was safe. Fire safety risks were understood by staff and well managed. One person said, ‘‘It is very lovely and beautiful here. [Staff] are quick to fix anything that needs fixing’’ A relative said, ‘‘We have no concerns with any aspect of the physical environment. It is a very welcoming and warm place.’’

There were enough staff to support people safely. Some staff told us it could be very busy at the service if people needed extra support. However, we observed and rotas showed a good level of staffing to support people at all times. Staff deployment was effective and staff spent time when they were not supporting people with direct support such as personal care, sitting and chatting with people. The management team at the service were able to directly support if more staff were needed at any time. One person said, ‘‘I ask for personal care whenever I want it, and I never have to wait, and I never feel rushed even though I like to take my time.’’ A relative told us, ‘‘There are always staff available and they check in on [family member] every hour to make sure they are okay.’’

Staff had the training they needed to support people safely and spoke to us about this knowledgably. Their competence was checked to help ensure they understood their training. The provider recruited staff safely. One person said, ‘‘Staff are all very clever and they chat with me about what they are doing (when they help me).’’ A relative told us, ‘‘There has been a big difference in the staff team lately and I would say the training is excellent.’’

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. Staff were trained in IPC and told us they had the necessary equipment to keep the service clean. We observed the service to be visibly clean. Staff whose role was to keep the service clean took pride in their work and knew how important it was for people’s home to be kept clean. Audits and checks were in place to monitor the cleanliness of the service and the effectiveness of the IPC measures in place. A person told us, ‘‘[Staff] are always busy dusting and cleaning away. It means it always looks good here.’’

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities, and preferences. All areas of medicines administration were safe. People received their medicines on time and staff knew how people liked to be supported. Staff were trained to administer medicines and had their competency to do so checked regularly. Audits were effective in monitoring and making sure medicines were being administered correctly. Protocols were in place to guide staff when people may need to be administered medicines which they did not take on a regular basis. One relative told us, ‘‘There has not been a problem with [family member’s] medicines for a long time and I am grateful to staff for managing these so carefully.’’