Fernlea

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 17 April 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

The inspection took place on 3 March 2026 and 12 March 2026 and was unannounced. Fernlea is a care home providing support for up to 13 people. This includes older and younger adults, people with sensory difficulties, people with mental health issues and people with a learning disability and/or autistic people. We looked at 2 key questions: effective and well-led. We assessed the service against ‘right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

The inspection was prompted by a previously identified breach of regulation relating to the governance of the service. At this inspection, we found that improvements had been made.

The provider ensured people received effective care by carrying out thorough assessments of their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs, and reviewing these regularly. Initial assessments were completed before admission, and risk assessments were kept up to date, so they reflected people’s current needs. People and relatives told us staff understood them well and people and relatives were actively involved in decisions about their care. Care plans we reviewed were detailed, person‑centred and included input from external professionals.

Staff worked closely with healthcare professionals and shared information effectively, helping ensure care remained joined up. They demonstrated a good understanding of people’s preferences and communication needs, adapting their support accordingly. Staff were well trained, including in specialist areas, and had completed competency checks such as medication assessments to ensure they delivered safe and appropriate care. People told us they felt listened to, valued and safe, and described positive experiences of being supported to maintain their health, wellbeing and independence. Staff were seen spending quality time with people who needed assistance. They interacted with individuals in a calm and supportive manner, explaining what food they were eating and ensuring people felt comfortable.

The service was well‑led by an approachable and visible management team who created a positive and open culture. Relatives told us they had confidence in the leadership and felt concerns would be addressed promptly. Staff said they felt valued, supported and able to raise issues, describing the registered manager and deputy manager as kind, responsive and invested in both staff and people living in the home.

Leaders promoted equality, inclusion and a culture of continuous learning. Supervisions and team meetings were used to reflect on practice and share learning, and staff from diverse backgrounds said they felt welcomed and respected. The provider had clear governance arrangements including audits and quality checks and acted on information about risk and performance to drive improvement. Staff understood their responsibilities around safeguarding and reporting concerns, contributing to a culture of safety and accountability.

Partnership working was strong, with professionals reporting good communication and collaborative working. The provider sought and acted on feedback from people, relatives and professionals, and embraced opportunities for improvement, including the introduction of a new digital care system. Overall, leadership supported a consistent approach to delivering high‑quality, person‑centred care.