This inspection took place 21 April 2017 and was unannounced.

The Ferns Residential Home is registered to accommodate up to 36 older people who need help with personal care. On the day of our inspection 33 people were living at the home.

The home has a registered manager in post who is also one of the providers. They were present for our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the last inspection in March 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People continued to be safe because they were supported by staff who understood how to identify and report potential harm and abuse. Staff were aware of any risks to people and what they needed to do to help reduce those risks, such as helping people to move safely around the home.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People continued to be supported by staff who had the skills to meet their needs. Staff had received training relevant to their roles and were supported in their roles by the manager and their colleagues. Checks had been completed on new staff to make sure they were suitable to work at the home.

People continued to receive food they enjoyed and were supported to eat and drink enough to keep them healthy. When they needed it, people continued to be supported to access other healthcare professionals to make sure their health needs were met. People's medicines were managed and stored in a safe way, and they had their medicines when they needed them.

People said staff treated them with kindness and compassion and they felt involved in their own care. Staff respected people’s dignity and privacy and supported them to keep their independence.

People continued to receive care that was personal to them because staff knew what their individual preferences and needs were. People told us they received their care when they needed it and were not kept waiting by staff.

People lived in a home where they felt confident to express themselves and felt comfortable to speak with staff and managers about concerns and issues that affected them. The provider encouraged people and their relatives to give their opinions of the home through surveys and feedback forms.

The registered manager had developed an established and strong staff team. The registered manager and staff had created an environment that was welcoming and friendly and the home’s positive values and culture were seen during our inspection. Staff were clear on their roles and spoke about the people they supported with respect.

We saw that systems were in place to monitor and check the quality of care and to make sure the environment was safe. The provider continued to involve people in the running of the home by providing opportunities for them to make suggestions for improvements. People felt their views were respected.

This inspection took place 21 April 2017 and was unannounced.

The Ferns Residential Home is registered to accommodate up to 36 older people who need help with personal care. On the day of our inspection 33 people were living at the home.

The home has a registered manager in post who is also one of the providers. They were present for our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the last inspection in March 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People continued to be safe because they were supported by staff who understood how to identify and report potential harm and abuse. Staff were aware of any risks to people and what they needed to do to help reduce those risks, such as helping people to move safely around the home.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People continued to be supported by staff who had the skills to meet their needs. Staff had received training relevant to their roles and were supported in their roles by the manager and their colleagues. Checks had been completed on new staff to make sure they were suitable to work at the home.

People continued to receive food they enjoyed and were supported to eat and drink enough to keep them healthy. When they needed it, people continued to be supported to access other healthcare professionals to make sure their health needs were met. People's medicines were managed and stored in a safe way, and they had their medicines when they needed them.

People said staff treated them with kindness and compassion and they felt involved in their own care. Staff respected people’s dignity and privacy and supported them to keep their independence.

People continued to receive care that was personal to them because staff knew what their individual preferences and needs were. People told us they received their care when they needed it and were not kept waiting by staff.

People lived in a home where they felt confident to express themselves and felt comfortable to speak with staff and managers about concerns and issues that affected them. The provider encouraged people and their relatives to give their opinions of the home through surveys and feedback forms.

The registered manager had developed an established and strong staff team. The registered manager and staff had created an environment that was welcoming and friendly and the home’s positive values and culture were seen during our inspection. Staff were clear on their roles and spoke about the people they supported with respect.

We saw that systems were in place to monitor and check the quality of care and to make sure the environment was safe. The provider continued to involve people in the running of the home by providing opportunities for them to make suggestions for improvements. People felt their views were respected.

As part of this inspection we spoke with five people who use the service, the assistant manager, the floor manager, one care staff a visitor and the registered manager. We also reviewed records relating to the management of the home and staff which included, three care plans. We observed interactions between people and the staff.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. Care plans identified people’s needs and were reviewed regularly. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs. People were given choices and supported to make decisions themselves. Generic risk assessments were in place for things such as medication and trips and falls. Individual risk assessments were in place for moving and handling. Control measures were identified. This meant that people’s needs were met and people were kept safe. People we spoke with told us they felt safe at the home.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. Documented procedures were in place for The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant that systems were in place to safeguard people as required.

People were not always protected against the risks associated with medicines. This was because stock of medicines were not always recorded and some liquids and powders had not been identified with an opened date. This meant staff could not be sure when the medicine would need to be disposed. There was not always enough information available for staff for medicine that was offered on an occasional basis. Only staff that had been trained administered medication. One person we spoke with said, “The staff are spot on with my medicine.”

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. People received care and support from staff who had the skills, experience and knowledge to meet their needs. People we spoke with told us they felt safe at the home. One person said, “The staff know what they are doing.” Another person said, “I have no complaints, you can’t fault them.”

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and concerns. People had access to a copy of the complaints procedure. Staff confirmed they would support people to make complaints. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Is the service effective?

People experienced care and support that met their needs. People were supported to participate in activities. One person told us they preferred their own company but enjoyed the quiz the home had on Saturday afternoon. Another person told us they went out a lot with friends. People told us they were involved in changes to their care. One person said, “They always contact my relative if there are any concerns.” Another person said, “I heard on the grapevine they look after you here. I haven’t regretted it all.” This meant that people were involved in decisions about their care.

People who were able to could move around the home and gardens freely and safely. Regular audits and checks took place. Issues identified were acted on. This meant the service had effective systems in place to identify improvements and continually meet people’s needs.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that support workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. We saw people responded positively to staff. One person said, “Yes, staff are very caring, the manager told me to not try and pick things up if I drop them.” People were very positive about the staff and the care they received.

People’s preferences, likes, dislikes and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes. People were involved in their day to day care and were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them. People’s diversity and individuality were promoted and respected.

Is the service responsive?

We saw staff that responded quickly to meet people’s needs and ensured people’s safety and dignity was maintained. For example, staff responded quickly to call bells. One person said, “I have used the call bell, they were here like a shot.” We saw that people were supported to express their views and that these were acted on. People had the opportunity to engage in activities both within the home and in the local community.

People we spoke with were aware of how to make a complaint. People told us they had no reason to complain. The home had not received any complaints since the last inspection.

Is the service well-led?

The registered manager, who is also the joint owner, was hands on. They told us they were currently in the process of recruiting a new member of staff but told us they wanted the right person. Staff told us the registered manager was approachable. People told us that if they had any issues they would speak to the registered manager and were confident they would be listened to. The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. Staff felt supported in their roles and felt their views were listened to. Staff we spoke with told us they were happy working at the home.

The service had a quality assurance system. A number of audits were undertaken monthly and annually. Action was taken as a result of audit findings. This meant the quality of the service was continually improving.

Everyone we spoke with had nice things to say about their care workers. One person said, "We are really pleased with the care my family member receives. The staff are lovely." Another person said, "They are doing a good job. They know what they are doing, and are hard-working, professional and pleasant."

We saw that the manager had effective staff recruitment and selection systems. Records sampled demonstrated there was a clear process that ensured appropriate checks were carried out before staff began work. These checks helped the service to make sure that job applicants were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

We looked at the recruitment records for staff who had recently started to work at the home. We saw records included a Disclosure Barring Service, (DBS) check, proof of identity, full employment history, training, qualifications and health status. Staff told us the recruitment process was thorough. The details in interview records showed checks were made to ensure the information they provided on their employment application form was correct.

Care workers reported they received a good induction and had worked alongside more experienced staff until they were confident and competent to care for people on their own. Staff records we looked at reflected this. Records showed that care workers attended a range of mandatory and specific training to give them the skills and knowledge they needed to carry out their roles. They told us the training they received was good quality and they felt well supported. One care worker told us, " I absolutely love it here."

We saw information in staff records that confirmed they had attended training specific to their role. We saw a range of training booked for staff so they could keep up-to-date with current practice.

When the service had to employ agency staff recently we saw this had been given a lot of planning and attention. The management devised a thorough induction programme. This was so that any agency staff engaged to work in the home were fully aware of all necessary policies and procedures. These included moving people safely, fire, accidents, and the management of falls. We saw this information recorded on in specific training records kept by management.

We visited the home unannounced on the 24 July 2012. There were 33 people living in the home of the day of the visit. We spoke to eight people who live at The Ferns, the registered manager / provider, two professional visitors, one visitor and six staff.

People told us that they were very satisfied with the care and support they were offered at the home. One person told us that it was an “excellent service”. They told us that The Ferns offered a homely environment that was always well looked after. People spoke in a very positive way about the registered manager / provider and staff and comments included that staff were “helpful”, “kind” and “marvellous”.

Care records were based on people’s individual needs and preferences and people were fully consulted and involved in making decisions that affected them.

Measures were in place to keep people at the home safe by providing staff with information about how to do this and access to regular training. People told us that they felt safe at the home and had confidence in the staff that looked after them.

The Ferns was very well maintained and decorated in a homely way that people who lived there liked. It was very clean, tidy and there were no unpleasant odours. There are accessible well maintained gardens that people were seen enjoying and are used for social events. Measures were in place to service and maintain the home so that people who live and work there were kept safe.

Records were kept securely and were well maintained. Documents were dated and signed and reviewed and updated whenever necessary.