Fig House

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 2 January 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of assessment: 13 November 2025 to the 24 November 2025.

Fig House is a care home providing support to up to 26 people. At the time of the assessment there were 24 people living at the home. We undertook visits to the service on the 13, and the 17 November 2025. We spoke with people whilst visiting the service and their relatives on the 19 and 20 November 2025. At this assessment we reviewed 6 quality statements this included learning culture, safeguarding, involving people to manage risk, safe and effective staffing, infection control and good governance.

At our last assessment in November 2024, we rated the service requires improvement with 3 breaches of legal regulations. This was because the provider was not ensuring notifications were being made as required, quality assurance systems were not identifying shortfalls and staff were not always being recruited safely. Following our assessment, the provider sent us an action plan on how they would meet the legal requirements. This assessment was completed to follow up the action plan.

At this assessment we found the provider had made improvements to staff recruitment procedures. Whilst some shortfalls were identified during this assessment in respect of notifications being made. The registered manager took action during the inspection, and we therefore found they were no longer in breach of notifications. However, because the provider’s own governance arrangements had not identified the shortfalls to notifications being made, as well as other areas of improvement found during our inspection. The provider was still in breach of 1 regulation of good governance at this assessment.

Improvements were needed to 3 people’s diabetic care planning information, their diabetic risk assessments and where mental capacity and best interest decisions were also needed for their diabetes care. We also found not all notifications were being made as required and agency staff needed training in diabetes care. The providers existing governance arrangements had not identified these shortfalls. This is a breach of good governance.

The service was being managed by a registered manager and a deputy manager. People, relatives and staff, felt there was enough staff and the provider monitored this through the service dependency tool. People and relatives felt the support provided by staff was positive and that staff were attentive providing safe care to people. Staff wore personal protective equipment when required and the service was clean and tidy. Staff felt supported by the registered manager and able to raise concerns with the management of the service if needed. Staff received mandatory training, although we found 1 member of staff needed mandatory training. Staff knew who to raise safeguarding concerns with if needed, although not all staff were familiar with the different types of abuse.

We sought feedback from health and social care professionals and had a response from 1. They felt people received care that was person centred, and referrals were made when required. They did however feel on occasions there could be some improvements to how quickly the service liaised with them.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.