Fernside Hall Care Home

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 changed to Requires Improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 46 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Our observations showed a person-centred approach was not always followed by staff. People’s care plans were not accurate, up to date or fully reflective of their needs. Communication between staff was not always effective which meant staff were not always aware of changes in people’s care needs.

Overall people told us they were satisfied with the care they received, although one person who stayed in their room told us they often felt very isolated.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

The service mainly supported older people with physical health needs and/or living with dementia, yet the needs of those people were not fully understood or met. There were significant shortfalls in provisions for people in relation to care and the environment. We observed staff practices did not meet the diverse needs of people.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Communication aids called Talking Tiles were available in the home which managers said provided people with information about activities, safeguarding, menus and complaints. Copies of the home’s newsletter was freely available and we saw people accessing this and discussing the contents.

However, care plans were not readily shared with people or relatives, and they were not up to date or accurate in the information they contained.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

There were limited opportunities for people to be able to share their views and provide feedback on care. Some people and relatives were not aware of any residents and relatives’ meetings. Improvements discussed and agreed at a relatives’ meeting in November 2024 had not been implemented. For example, it had been agreed a clock with the date and day would be put in the lounge, the tea trolley would have biscuits, buns and fruit available and people would be encouraged to eat in dining room. None of these were in place at our site visits.

There was a system in place to respond to any concerns and complaints. People told us if they had any concerns they would speak to the manager.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Systems and processes in place were not always effective in ensuring people were supported to experience equality in the care and support they received. For example, further improvements were needed to ensure people’s care was person-centred.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Systems and processes in place did not always support equity in people’s experiences and outcomes.

The provider had an equality, diversity, and human rights policy in place to protect people and staff against discrimination.Staff had completed equality and diversity training.

People were not always 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.

People’s preferences in relation to emergency care and treatment, including resuscitation were documented. End of life care plans were in place. However, we identified gaps in daily care records for 1 person who was receiving end of life care, which meant we could not be assured the person received the care and support they needed towards the end of their life.