The Ferns 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 how staff respected people’s dignity.

This service scored 45 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

Staff did not consistently support people with kindness or respect. Some people were made to feel like they were an inconvenience when they asked staff for support. Staff often entered people’s rooms without knocking or announcing themselves. Corridors were noisy with staff shouting to each other. People’s dignity and privacy was not always maintained when they were in public areas. People gave mixed feedback about staff. A person said, “I think [staff] do alright,” and “The staff aren’t too bad, they vary in caring and quality.”

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.

We observed staff treating people as a group rather than individuals. Where people had specific preferences, they were not always listened to. For example, only tea was offered on the refreshment trolley, one person asked for coffee, but tea was imposed on them.

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.

People told us they did not have control over some aspects of their lives. For example, one person wanted to go into the garden regularly, but staff could not facilitate this. They said, “I haven’t been out since 3pm yesterday, I would like to go out 2-4 times a day but usually it’s only 2. It’s because staff are always busy with the computer and just say ‘later on’, it’s as if I am being brushed under the carpet. Last night’s staff took no notice whatsoever.”

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

Staff were not responsive to people’s immediate needs. We routinely observed people being told to wait for support and then not receiving it. Some staff were not observant of people when in public areas, meaning people’s dignity was not always maintained. A person said, “[Staff] are not always able to come and chat as they are short staffed, they were short staffed yesterday, I got myself up, but other people were up late yesterday.”

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff said they felt well supported by the management team, particularly after a recent change in management. A staff member said, “[The management team] treat you fairly. When I returned from an absence, they changed my shifts around for me, they’re flexible. [The home manager] is a good manager but there have been too many recently.”