CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Fairburn
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were considered safe, with suitable staffing, safe medicines systems and risk assessments that supported independence. A missing oxygen sign on a bedroom door was identified and fixed during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training for people's specific needs, including epilepsy, tracheostomy care and PEG feeding. Care plans, professional support and food and drink arrangements were used to meet people's needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- People, relatives and professionals spoke positively about the staff. Inspectors saw that support was individualised and encouraged people to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans explained how people wanted to be supported and were reviewed with people and families. The home arranged activities, supported normal routines and responded to changes and emergency requests.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager and team leaders were described as approachable, and staff worked together positively. Quality checks covered care plans, medicines, staff training and safeguards.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised short-break care, with a signage issue fixed and one communication request followed up.
This was an unannounced inspection on 27 November 2018. One inspector spoke with people using the home, relatives, staff and the registered manager. The inspector also reviewed care records and management records.
The home provides short breaks for people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found that people were safe and supported by suitable numbers of trained staff. Medicines, risks, food and health needs were managed appropriately.
People and relatives described staff as kind, approachable and flexible. Care was tailored to each person, and relatives were involved. The home was also found to have a positive culture and systems for checking quality.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was unchanged from the previous inspection in 2016, when there were no breaches of regulations.
Safe staffing and medicines
Staffing was planned around the number of people staying and their support needs. Staff were recruited, trained and assessed, and medicines were stored and recorded safely.
“Medicines policies and procedures were followed and medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Individual care
Care plans explained people's routines, communication and support needs. Staff worked with families and other professionals to provide consistent care.
“People were valued and supported to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Kind staff
People, relatives and professionals described staff as friendly, caring and approachable. Inspectors found that staff built positive relationships with people.
“Everyone said the staff were friendly, approachable and caring.” from the report
Flexible support
The home usually arranged families' preferred dates and responded to emergencies such as a carer's illness. It also adapted support when people's needs changed.
“Relatives continued to commend the service for its flexibility in arranging preferred dates.” from the report
Positive management
Staff described a supportive team, with regular meetings and clear roles. The home had a quality assurance system covering important areas of care.
“Observations of how staff interacted with each other and the management of the service showed there was a positive culture.” from the report
Oxygen safety sign
needs fixingThe required oxygen sign was not initially displayed on a person's bedroom door. The registered manager corrected this during the inspection after seeking advice.
“We advised that this should also be on the person's bedroom door so it was clear that in event of an emergency where the risks were.” from the report
Communication diary
needs fixingOne relative had requested a diary to share information between the home, day care and family, but it had not been put in place. The inspector contacted the registered manager so this could be addressed.
“Another relative said they were aware that this could be put in place and had requested this. However, no action had been taken.” from the report
- 01Has the communication diary requested by a relative now been put in place, and how will information be shared between the home, day services and family?
- 02How will you make sure oxygen signage and other emergency information are always displayed where staff and emergency responders can see them?
- 03How would you support my relative if they have complex health needs, and what specific staff training or nursing support would be available?
- 04How are people matched with others staying at the same time, and what happens if there is an emergency or compatibility problem?
- 05How far in advance can we request short-break dates, and what would happen if the emergency bed is already being used?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five questions: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led; the ratings were unchanged from 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 December 2018 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.
What inspectors found, October 2016
Fairburn was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but some records and safety information needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 and 23 September 2016. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They also reviewed care records, medicines information, staffing records, training and quality checks.
The home provided short breaks for people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found care plans were personalised and that people received safe, effective and caring support. Relatives praised the staff and the home's flexibility, including its response to emergencies.
The inspectors also found some gaps. These included missing records about money, food and fluid, pressure-relieving position changes, activities and information shared between services. All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
Personalised care
Care plans explained how each person wanted to be supported. People and relatives were involved in creating and reviewing these plans.
“Care plans and risk assessments were of a good quality which clearly identified any risks and people's individual needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well, listened to them and supported them in a dignified way. Relatives described the staff as caring and knowledgeable.
“People were supported in a dignified and respectful manner.” from the report
Safe medicines arrangements
The home had individual arrangements for medicines, with records of medicines received and given. Staff who administered medicines had training and competency checks.
“People's medicines were managed according to their needs.” from the report
Flexible short breaks
The home usually provided requested dates and could respond to emergencies, such as a carer becoming ill or a family bereavement.
“Relatives commended the service in relation to the planning, flexibility and delivery of care.” from the report
Teamwork and oversight
Staff described a supportive team and approachable management. Quality checks covered care, medicines, cleanliness, staffing and training.
“The provider and the registered manager carried out checks of the service to assess the quality of service people experienced.” from the report
Money records did not match
seriousRecords suggested money belonging to two people was still at the home, but staff could not find it. One record also showed a person had stayed on a date when they had not been there.
“However, we found for two people their records indicated that money was still in Fairburn. Staff were unable to find the money.” from the report
Risk of inconsistent drink thickness
seriousStaff used different terms for the texture of one person's drinks. Inspectors said this created a choking risk if the care plan was not followed consistently.
“There was a risk that this person could choke if their person's plan was not followed consistently.” from the report
Some care records were missing
needs fixingThere were no records showing when or how much tube feed or fluid one person received. Records of pressure-relieving position changes were also missing.
“There were no records maintained of when and how much feed or fluid was given to this person.” from the report
Communication records could lapse
needs fixingSome relatives said information in diaries about medicines and health concerns improved for a while but was not kept up consistently.
“Both relatives said they had discussed this with the staff and registered manager and it improved for a while and then it lapses again.” from the report
One incident was not reported promptly
needs fixingThe manager had not initially notified the CQC about an incident involving bruising. This was addressed after the inspection by sending a notification.
“the registered manager had not reported this to us.” from the report
- 01What was the outcome of the investigation into the missing money records, and what checks are now made when money is held?
- 02How do you record the amount and timing of tube feed and fluid for people who need this support?
- 03How do you make sure all staff use the correct drink thickness and follow the person's choking-risk guidance?
- 04How are pressure-relieving position changes recorded and checked?
- 05How do you record activities, refusals and important information passed between the home, family and other services?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and providing an overall rating for the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 October 2016 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.
Every inspection of Fairburn
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 November 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
39 live-in carers within about an hour of South Gloucestershire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,280 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.