Fernside Hall Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 50 (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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

People described the staff as kind, caring and nice and felt they were treated with respect and dignity. Comments included, “The staff are amazing. They treat us all in the same cheery, smiling, caring way as far as I have seen” and “It’s like they have all the time in the world when they are with me.”

However, we also observed times when staff did not show empathy and compassion towards people. For example, 1 person was sat in a wheelchair in the lounge for over an hour before being hoisted into a chair. During this time the person was distressed, hitting themselves and continually shouting out. This impacted on other people in the lounge. Staff failed to take action to alleviate the person’s distress until an hour later.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Our observations showed staff were kind and well-meaning but lacked a person-centred approach, focusing on completion of tasks.

We observed individuals protected characteristics were not considered, for example, different religions and cultures were not promoted as part of their care during our site visits. Individual’s preferences, likes and dislikes were not always considered. Individuals were not always given the opportunity to be involved in activities that were meaningful to them or met their individual needs around their identity.For example, 1 person’s care records showed they wished to attend church every week. There was no evidence in activity notes to evidence this had happened or that contact had been made with the church to facilitate visits.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Some people told us they were offered choices of what they wanted to do, eat and wear. Comments included, “Staff keep me informed of what is happening. It’s up to me if I want to join in or not”, “I am free to do what I want when I want” and “The staff get my clothes out of my wardrobe each day, they don’t offer me a choice but, if I didn’t like what they got out, I would let them know.”

However, we observed for other people choice and independence was not promoted. For example, people who were mobile either independently or with use of a walking frame, were regularly asked to sit down in the lounge by staff. People were not encouraged to walk around or asked if they required support, for example, with toileting.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We observed staff were not always attentive to people's immediate needs and did not always respond promptly. For example, we heard and saw 3 people commenting to different staff that they were cold, but no action was taken until we intervened. On another occasion a person had not eaten their lunch and several times asked staff for something else to eat. No action was taken until the inspector raised this with management.

There was a lack of oversight and monitoring by the provider and manager to ensure people’s needs were being responded to.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

We received mixed feedback from staff about how well they felt supported. Comments included, “Consistency and communication need to be worked on”, “I have always got support if I need it. I feel like my concerns have been acted on and listened to” and “Morale is low. Lots of staff have left. There’s a lack of communication with staff.” Staff consistently told us they felt there was not enough staff to meet people’s needs and there was a lack of supervision from senior staff.

Staff survey results from August 2024 identified dissatisfaction in many areas. An action plan had been put in place and signed off as completed.