We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Fer View Residential Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about The Fer View Residential Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
The Fer View Residential Care Home is a residential care home that was providing personal care with accommodation to older people aged 65 and over, some of whom had dementia, over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to six people. At the time of the inspection the service was supporting five people.
The Fer View Residential Care Home accommodates people in one adapted building. Each person had their own room and shared communal facilities, including lounge, kitchen and bathroom.
People’s experience of using this service
People and their relatives told us they were safe, and staff treated them well. Risk assessments detailed how to support people to minimise risk of harm. Staff had been recruited safely. Systems and processes were in place to support staff to understand their role and responsibilities to protect people from avoidable harm.
There was a process in place to report, monitor and learn from accidents and incidents. People were protected from the risks associated with poor infection control as there were processes in place to reduce the risk of infection and cross contamination. There were systems to ensure proper and safe use of medicines.
Staff received training and were supported to effectively carry out their role. Staff worked with professionals to support people’s care needs. People were asked for their consent before care was provided.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met by the service. The service worked with other health and care professionals to meet people’s health needs.
People’s needs were assessed prior to joining the service. Care plans documented people’s preferences, likes and dislikes. People’s communication needs were documented in their care plan. Staff were caring, kind and spoke attentively to people.
People were supported by staff who knew people well. People were supported to maintain their independence and their dignity was valued and respected.
People were supported to participate in some activities and follow their own interests. People and relatives were able to approach the registered provider to raise a concern if they were unhappy about the service they received.
There were systems in place for monitoring the quality of the service. The provider knew what was expected of them in terms of Duty of Candour and the importance of being transparent when things go wrong.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 22 July 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
People told us they felt safe at the home and found staff helpful and caring. The service provided safe care to people by ensuring risks involved in supporting people were identified and sufficient measures put in place to minimise those risks. There were effective systems operated to prevent abuse of people and staff had a good understanding of their role in identifying and reporting abuse and poor care. People and staff were happy with the staffing levels and the service maintained accurate records of staffing allocation. The service maintained safe medicines administration processes, accurate medicines administration records and met infection prevention control requirements.
The service followed appropriate safe recruitment procedures to ensure people were supported by staff who had been properly vetted before starting work. Staff continued to receive regular support and supervision and effective training in areas relevant to care delivery. People’s nutrition and hydration and health and care needs were met.
The service operated within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
People received individualised care from staff that respected their privacy and treated them dignity.
Staff supported people to remain as independent as they could by encouraging them to carry out activities of their choice. People’s cultural and religious and spiritual needs were acknowledged and supported when required. The service was responsive to people’s changing needs and recorded them in people’s care plans. Care plans were individualised and detailed people’s life stories, their individual preferences and likes and dislikes were recorded.
The service maintained effective systems and processes to identify any gaps and areas of improvement in quality and safety of the service by carrying out regular monitoring checks and audits.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
The home had a registered manager in place (who was also the registered provider). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The home was clean, however there was room for improvement in the recording and implementation of the infection control procedures. People were provided with their medicines safely, however their known allergies were not always recorded on medicines records. Safe systems were in place for recruiting staff, and there were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs, however an accurate record of the staffing rota was not being maintained. The registered manager undertook to address these issues without delay.
People told us that their care needs were met to their satisfaction, and staff were caring and protected their privacy and dignity. Assessments were undertaken to ensure that people were able to consent to their care, and were not at risk of being deprived of their liberty if they were unable to go out of the home without staff support. Detailed information was provided in people’s care plans including information about their preferences.
Staff received regular training and supervision meetings to support them in their role. They spoke positively about the support provided by the registered manager. Staff training needs were assessed, with systems in place to make sure they had training in mandatory and other relevant areas. Staff showed a good knowledge of people’s life histories and preferences regarding their care and support needs. They were clear about the procedures for reporting abuse and felt that the registered manager listened to their views.
People were provided with a choice of food at meal times, and were supported to eat when this was needed. They spoke positively about the food provision in the home. They were also satisfied with the range of activities available to them, although the registered manager was looking to further develop these.
People’s health needs were met, and they were supported to consult with health and social care professionals as needed without delay. They attended meetings or spoke directly to the registered manager to raise any issues of concern. The provider had systems for monitoring the quality of the service and engaged with people and their relatives to address any concerns.