CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Fairburn Vale
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, cleaning, visiting and managing possible outbreaks. The provider also said it had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- The report does not give a rating or findings for this question.
- Caring?
- Good
- The report does not give a rating or findings for this question.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The report does not give a rating or findings for this question.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The report does not give a rating or findings for this question.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Fairburn Vale was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and visiting arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 27 January 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19-related staffing pressures affected care.
Inspectors were assured that visitors were screened, staff used protective equipment properly, testing was in place and the home was clean and well maintained. They also found that the home supported people's social and emotional wellbeing, including through video calls.
The home was not given an overall rating. Safe was recorded as inspected but not rated. The other four areas were not covered by this inspection.
Visitor safety
Visitors had to go through screening, show vaccination evidence and provide a negative lateral flow test before entering.
“All visitors, including professionals, were subject to a range of screening procedures, including showing evidence of Covid-19 vaccination and a negative lateral flow test before entry into the home was allowed.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean, well maintained and free from unpleasant smells. Daily cleaning schedules were in place.
“The care home was clean, well maintained and odour-free. Daily cleaning schedules were in place.” from the report
Infection control
Staff had infection control and PPE training. The home had enough PPE, current policies and regular audits, and acted on audit findings.
“We saw that regular IPC audits had been undertaken and the home had actioned the findings of the audits.” from the report
Social contact
Staff supported people's social and emotional wellbeing, including by helping people keep in touch through video calls.
“Staff supported people's social and emotional wellbeing. Alternative forms of maintaining social contact were in place including video calls.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What measures are currently in place to manage staffing pressures, and have these affected people's care?
- 02What screening, testing and vaccination checks are currently required for visitors and visiting professionals?
- 03How do you support residents to maintain social contact when face-to-face visits are restricted?
- 04How often are infection prevention and control audits completed, and what actions have followed recent findings?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not rate the other four questions or give an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 February 2022 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, November 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe support and strong management, but staffing feedback was mixed and dietary information was not easy for all staff to access.
Inspectors visited on 4 August and 21 September 2021. The inspection was unannounced. They spoke with people living in the home, staff and relatives, and reviewed care, medicines, staff and management records.
People were generally supported safely. Risk assessments were clear, medicines were managed safely, infection control measures were in place and staff understood safeguarding procedures. Inspectors also found good support with health, nutrition, choices and mental capacity.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were each rated Good. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection, published in October 2017. Inspectors recommended improving the information available about people's dietary needs for staff who were less familiar with them.
Clear risk planning
Care plans gave staff clear guidance about individual risks, including seizures, PEG feeding and repositioning.
“Individual risk assessments were documented well in care plans and guidance for staff was very clear so they could support people safely.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Staff received medicines training and had their competence checked. Audits were used to identify and correct issues.
“Medicines were managed safely and people were supported appropriately.” from the report
Supportive relationships
People felt safe and staff knew them well. Relatives described communication and support positively.
“People felt safely supported and there were secure relationships with staff, who knew people very well.” from the report
Strong oversight
Management used audits, investigations and meetings to monitor quality and make improvements.
“Quality checks were routinely and robustly carried out, with systems and processes to ensure risks were identified and there was continuous improvement to the service.” from the report
Mixed staffing feedback
needs fixingStaff numbers were below the provider's expectations on the inspection day. Although the provider said care was not affected, some people and staff felt there were not enough staff.
“We had mixed feedback from people and staff about the staffing levels, with some who said there were enough staff on duty, whilst others said there were not.” from the report
Dietary information
needs fixingStaff knew people's dietary needs, but this information was not readily available for new or agency staff. Inspectors recommended making it easier for all staff to check.
“Staff knew people's dietary needs well, but this information was not readily accessible for staff who were less familiar with people's needs, such as new or agency staff.” from the report
Practical training delays
minorSome practical training had been delayed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The home was arranging this as restrictions eased.
“Some practical training had not always been available due to the COVID-19 pandemic, such as PEG feeding demonstration, but we had assurance this was being sourced as restrictions eased.” from the report
Mask handling
minorInspectors saw occasional touching of face masks. Management said this would be addressed immediately.
“Staff wore personal protective equipment as necessary, although there was the occasional touching of face masks observed.” from the report
- 01How many staff are normally on duty for each shift, and what happens when staffing falls below the expected level?
- 02Where can new and agency staff check each person's dietary needs before supporting them at mealtimes?
- 03Has the delayed practical training, including PEG feeding demonstration, now been completed?
- 04What action was taken after inspectors observed staff touching face masks?
- 05How will you keep families informed about care, complaints and any changes in a person's support?
This report rated Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not rated in the report, so this is not a full set of five question ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 November 2021 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 Vale
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2021Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 July 2011.
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
92 live-in carers within about an hour of Wakefield
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
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.