Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a nursing home, run by Berkley Care Group

Fernhill House

Grange Lane, Fernhill Heath, Worcester, WR3 7UR

Requires improvementpublished 16 January 2024, 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
Inspectors found problems with topical creams, covert medicines, expired DoLS authorisations and wound-care information. They also found safeguarding systems, staffing, recruitment and infection-control arrangements were satisfactory.
Effective?
Good
This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
Caring?
Good
This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
Responsive?
Good
This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
The home's audits did not identify important problems with records, consent and medicines. Inspectors also found an open culture and management that responded to feedback.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, January 2024

Fernhill House is Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found concerns about medicines, consent and record keeping, despite kind care and responsive management.

This was an unannounced focused inspection on 20 and 23 November 2023. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led, after concerns about medicines, falls and a possible delay in emergency medical care. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.

The home was not always safe. Some creams were unsecured, lacked risk assessments or had incomplete labels. One person received medicines covertly without the required best-interest process or evidence of pharmacist advice. Some DoLS authorisations had expired, and some care plans and risk assessments were out of date.

The home was not always well-led. Audits had not found problems with records, medicines and consent. Inspectors also found limited improvement in wound-care plans. However, people and relatives spoke positively about the staff and management. The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection, published in October 2018, to Requires Improvement.

What inspectors praised
  • Safeguarding

    People were protected by safeguarding systems, and staff had received training about abuse.

    People were safeguarded from the risk of harm or abuse.from the report
  • Staffing and recruitment

    Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and safe recruitment checks.

    Safe recruitment practices were in place to ensure only staff suitable to work with vulnerable people were employed.from the report
  • Open management

    People, relatives and staff described managers as approachable and willing to listen. The manager was involved in the day-to-day running of the home.

    There was an open and positive culture.from the report
  • Infection control

    Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements for preventing and managing infections.

    We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Medicines and creams

    serious

    Some topical creams were not securely stored, and some lacked risk assessments, prescription labels or opening dates. Inspectors also found concerns about medicines given covertly.

    There were no risk assessments for paraffin based topical creams.from the report
  • Consent and legal safeguards

    serious

    The home did not always follow the Mental Capacity Act. Covert medicines were started without evidence of a best-interest decision, and three DoLS authorisations had expired without evidence of re-application.

    The covert procedure had already been implemented without a DoLS or best interest decision prior to this being commenced.from the report
  • Care records

    serious

    Some care plans and risk assessments were overdue. Inspectors also found limited evidence that wound-care plans had improved after earlier local authority feedback.

    Some people's care plans, and risk assessments were out-of-date on the first day of our inspection.from the report
  • Quality checks

    serious

    The home's audits had not identified the problems found during the inspection. This meant the provider's systems were not reliably driving improvement.

    Governance at the service was not always effective because the provider's system did not always effectively monitor the quality of care provided to drive improvements.from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What has changed in the process for giving medicines covertly, including best-interest decisions, DoLS applications and pharmacist advice?
  2. 02How are paraffin-based creams now risk assessed, labelled, dated and stored securely?
  3. 03Have all care plans and risk assessments been reviewed, and how will you keep them up to date?
  4. 04What specific improvements have been made to wound-care plans and communication with district nurses?
  5. 05What evidence can you show that your audits now identify and correct these problems?

This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key-question ratings were not inspected and the previous ratings were used to calculate the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 January 2024 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 Fernhill House

2 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.

  1. January 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Fernhill House

  2. October 2018Good
    Safe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good

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

  3. June 2018

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 June 2018.

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.

Nearby

Other care homes near Worcester

The Belmont

Worcester, WR3 · 1.3 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 9 months agocare home

Northwick Grange

Worcester, WR3 · 2.2 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 7 years agocare home

St Stephen's Care Home

Worcester, WR3 · 2.3 km
Requires improvement
ResidentialDementia
Rated 20 months agocare home

Henwick Grange

Worcester, WR2 · 3.4 km
Requires improvement
NursingDementia
Rated 10 months agocare home