Fernside Hall Care Home

Ratings

• Overall

  Inadequate

• Safe

  Inadequate

• Effective

  Requires improvement

• Caring

  Requires improvement

• Responsive

  Requires improvement

• Well-led

  Inadequate

Our view of the service

Dates of assessment were from 28 May 2025 to 25 June 2025. The assessment was triggered in response to risk and included visits to the service on 28 May and 4 and 12 June 2025. Fernside Hall is a care home providing nursing and personal care for up to 24 people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 22 people living at the service.

We identified breaches of regulation relating to safeguarding, safe care and treatment, person-centred care and good governance. There was a significant lack of oversight at the service and quality assurance systems and processes were ineffective. People’s care was not always person-centred, risks to people were not managed safely and people were not always protected from abuse and improper treatment. Medicines were not managed safely. Infection control procedures were not always implemented. There was a failure to identify, monitor and address shortfalls relating to the experiences of people which meant poor standards of care were widespread.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to some of the concerns found at this assessment. In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded.

This service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.

People's experience of this service

Most people said they felt safe at the service and spoke positively about the staff who they described as kind and caring. While people expressed general satisfaction with their care, our assessment found the care provided did not meet the expected standards. People’s care was not person-centred and people were not involved in planning or reviewing their care. People told us there were not enough staff and said, at times, they had to wait for their needs to be met. People gave mixed feedback about the food, some felt there was a lack of choice and said the meals were often cold, others were satisfied. People told us they were supported to access the health care services they needed. People felt they had some choice and control over their care and daily lives and told us about activities they had enjoyed.