The Fernes

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans provided clear and informative guidance for staff on how to meet people’s needs. People’s preferences and choices were documented, and people told us staff respected these. For example, people told us staff offered them regular showers or baths. One person’s relative said, “The staff definitely know [name]. There is constant chatting between the staff and [name].”

People consistently told us that staff knew them well. Some people told us staff knew how important their appearance was to them and that they were supported to wear co-ordinated clothes. One person told us, “I like my room clean and my laundry perfect and the staff keep everything just as I like it. Another person told us staff knew them so well, that when they rang the call bell for a cup of tea during the night, staff brought it to them without needing to ask what they needed.

Several people told us they felt happy and content living at the service. One person said, “It’s brilliant here. I have had some health issues, but they are improving and I am on the right medication now which is brilliant.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The provider worked closely with people and healthcare partners to maintain continuity of care. People told us they had access to health care professionals when required, including dentists and opticians. The service was visited fortnightly by a professional from a local GP practice, and staff told us how they could seek additional advice and support between those visits. A health professional told us, “We do the ward round weekly; it’s face to face every other week. Staff can also call or email us for advice if needed. Staff are very good and the majority I see do know the residents really well.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s communication needs were assessed. When people had specific communication needs, this was written in care plans. For example, care plans for people who had poor eyesight, described how staff should position themselves when speaking to people and where to place people’s belongings so that they were able to see them or locate them.

Meals were written on menu cards in dining rooms. There were notice boards in communal areas of the service which provided information to people about upcoming events, how to make a complaint and information about the service. Relatives told us they were kept well informed and communication was consistent and effective.

In the main, there was clear signage throughout the building which supported people to find their way around safely and independently. However, signage on Memory Lane was not dementia friendly. We discussed this with the management team during the inspection, and they advised they would review signage with the provider's dementia lead.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Regular resident and relative meetings took place. People told us they felt able to speak up during these and confirmed the provider acted to rectify any issues raised. For example, 1 person told us, “[Registered manager] attends residents' meetings, and she always tries to act on anything we ask of her. The food has been a bit of an issue, and she is getting it sorted out. Some changes are needed but it’s nothing bad.”

Relatives told us they received minutes from the meetings if unable to attend. The provider actively sought feedback from people, relatives, friends and staff through regular surveys. The 2026 ‘residents, friends and family feedback’ showed people and their family members gave a high appreciation score and were “very pleased” with the service being provided. The feedback covered areas such as care and support, activities provision and good nutrition.

The provider maintained a compliments log which evidenced consistently positive feedback from relatives, visitors and professionals. Feedback highlighted the caring and compassionate approach of staff, the welcoming and well-maintained environment, and the quality of care provided. Professionals also praised staff knowledge, person-centred practice and attention to peoples' safety and wellbeing.The compliments demonstrated that people, relatives and external professionals had confidence in the service and valued the support provided. People and their relatives told us they knew how to make a complaint and were confident any issues would be addressed by the registered manager.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People’s needs were assessed before they moved to the service. When people’s needs changed, records showed staff referred people for specialist support and advice.

The environment was accessible, with wide corridors fitted with handrails and adapted toilets and bathrooms. All areas within the service and the garden were wheelchair accessible.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff had completed equality, diversity and inclusion training. People’s care plans contained clear, personalised guidance that reflected their individual needs, preferences and protected characteristics. This supported staff to recognise and respect people’s communication needs, cultural backgrounds and religious beliefs when delivering care. Care plans provided detailed information to help staff meet people’s needs consistently, in line with their wishes, while promoting wellbeing, independence and quality of life.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Overall, advanced care plans were in place and informed staff of people’s choices about how they wanted to be cared for at the end of their lives. This included information around people’s spiritual choices. Some people, and their families had chosen not to participate in conversations about end-of-life preferences; however, there were no records of staff revisiting this topic at a later date. We fed this back to the management team during the inspection, and they said they would address this.