Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Ferncross Care

Draycombe House

1 Draycombe Drive, Heysham, Morecambe, LA3 1LN

Requires improvementpublished 22 September 2023, 2 years ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Requires improvement
Some risks had not been properly assessed, some equipment safety checks had not been completed, and some staff training was outstanding. People said they felt safe, and the manager arranged risk assessments and equipment checks during the inspection.
Effective?
Requires improvement
This key question was not inspected in this focused inspection. Its rating was not given in this report.
Caring?
Good
This key question was not inspected in this focused inspection. The report nevertheless says people received kind and compassionate care and were treated with respect.
Responsive?
Good
People were supported with personalised care, communication, independence and activities they enjoyed. The home had improved support for people to take part in the community.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
The systems for checking the quality and safety of the home were not effective. The manager also lacked knowledge in some areas of responsibility for assessing safety.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, September 2023

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but safety checks and quality monitoring were not reliable.

This was an unannounced focused inspection. The inspector visited on 13 July 2023 and returned to review further safety records. They spoke with people and staff, observed care, looked around the home, and checked care, medicine, staffing, training and safety records.

People said they felt safe and received kind care from staff who knew them well. The home had improved support for community activities since the previous inspection. People were supported with medicines, health care, communication and decisions about their lives.

However, some risks had not been properly assessed. Some equipment safety checks had not been completed, and some staff training was incomplete. The home also did not have effective systems to monitor safety and quality. The registered manager arranged some checks and risk assessments during the inspection, but the home remained in breach of two regulations.

The overall rating remained Requires Improvement. Safe and well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while responsive was rated Good. This was the second consecutive inspection with an overall Requires Improvement rating.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and respectful care

    People received kind, compassionate and personalised care from staff who knew them well. Staff respected people's privacy, dignity, choices and communication needs.

    People received kind and compassionate care from staff who knew them well.from the report
  • Community activities

    People had returned to activities such as local clubs, family visits and local amenities. This was an improvement since the previous inspection.

    People told us they enjoyed the activities they followed in the community.from the report
  • Support with medicines

    Staff were trained to manage medicines safely and followed systems for administering, recording and storing them.

    People were supported by staff who followed systems and processes to administer, record and store medicines safely.from the report
  • Staffing and safeguarding

    Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse, and recruitment checks were carried out.

    People were protected from abuse because staff understood how to identify and report any concerns.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Risks were not fully assessed

    serious

    Some risks to people's health, safety and welfare had not been assessed, or the assessments were not strong enough. Inspectors said this placed people at risk of harm.

    People were not protected against the risk of harm and infection because some risks had not been assessed and some risk assessments were not robust.from the report
  • Safety checks were missed

    serious

    Some checks on equipment and the premises had not been completed. The manager arranged the required checks during the inspection.

    Some checks on the safety of equipment had not been carried out.from the report
  • Weak quality monitoring

    serious

    The home's systems did not identify the problems with risk assessments and safety checks. The manager also lacked knowledge in some areas of responsibility.

    The provider had failed to operate effective systems to ensure the quality and safety of the service.from the report
  • Some staff training incomplete

    needs fixing

    Some staff had not completed training about keeping people safe. The manager had arranged for the required training to be completed.

    Some staff had not completed training around how to ensure people were safe.from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Which risk assessments were missing or not robust, and when were they completed?
  2. 02Have all equipment and premises safety checks now been completed, and how often will they be repeated?
  3. 03Which staff had not completed safety training, and has all required training now been completed?
  4. 04What new system will check that risks, equipment safety and service quality are monitored consistently?
  5. 05How will you maintain the improved programme of community activities for each person?

This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected, and their ratings were not given in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 September 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Draycombe House

5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.

  1. September 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Draycombe House

  2. June 2022Requires improvementdown from Good
    Safe: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. August 2019Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
  4. February 2017Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
  5. September 2015Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
  6. February 2021

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 February 2021.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

Same provider

Other services run by Ferncross Care LTD

1 other service on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.

Nearby

Other care homes near Morecambe

Clover House

Morecambe, LA3 · 0.2 km
Good
Residential
Rated 8 years agocare home

Campbell House

Morecambe, LA3 · 0.4 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 8 years agocare home

Fernbank Lodge

Morecambe, LA3 · 0.8 km
Good
Residential
Rated 2 years agoReport explained