CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Fairfax Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Medicines, staffing, risk assessments, infection control and learning from incidents were found to be managed safely, although one medicines assessment was out of date.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. The rating from the previous inspection was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. The report says care was person-centred and promoted people's dignity, privacy and human rights.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. The rating from the previous inspection was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider had management and quality-checking systems, and acted on issues found during the inspection. A new manager was in post and had started the CQC registration process.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care, with some medicines and management records needing attention.
This was a focused inspection on 5 and 12 December 2023. Inspectors checked Safe and Well-led. They spoke with one person, two relatives and six staff, and reviewed care files, medicines records and management documents.
The home supported four people. Inspectors found people were safe, medicines were given as prescribed, staffing was sufficient and risks were assessed. Care promoted people's choice, independence, dignity and privacy. People and relatives spoke positively about the care.
The home had a new manager who had started the registration process with CQC. Inspectors found systems for checking quality and acting on improvements. Some issues were addressed during the inspection, including missing information about raising concerns and a medicines body map.
The overall rating was Good, as it was at the previous inspection in 2017. This inspection did not assess Caring, Effective or Responsive. Their earlier ratings were used when calculating the overall rating.
Safe medicines support
People received their medicines on time and as prescribed. The provider also assessed how people could safely access medicines in their preferred way.
“People received their medicines on time and as prescribed.” from the report
Enough suitable staff
Inspectors found safe recruitment processes and enough suitable staff to support people.
“The provider ensured there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff.” from the report
Person-centred care
Staff knew people well and supported their choices, independence, dignity and privacy.
“Care was person-centred and promoted people's dignity, privacy, and human rights.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home investigated accidents and incidents and shared learning with staff to reduce the chance of similar events happening again.
“Lessons were learned from incidents and learning was shared with the staff team to prevent similar incidents occurring.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider had systems to monitor care, identify improvements and check that actions were completed.
“There were systems to monitor the quality of the service to ensure improvements were identified and actioned.” from the report
One medicines assessment was out of date
needs fixingOne assessment about supporting a person to access medicines safely had not been reviewed on time. Inspectors raised this with the manager.
“We spoke with the manager to ensure these were reviewed regularly as we found 1 out of date.” from the report
Information about raising concerns was briefly missing
minorOn the first inspection day, the noticeboard did not explain how people and staff could raise concerns. This was put back on display by the second day.
“On the first day of the inspection there was no information on the board on how this could be raised.” from the report
Access to team meetings
minorInspectors discussed the need for regular team meetings so all staff could take part. The management team had booked several meetings.
“We discussed the importance of regular team meetings to ensure all staff could access these.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure medicines assessments are reviewed on time, including the assessment that was out of date at the inspection?
- 02How is the new manager's CQC registration progressing?
- 03How do you make sure every staff member can attend regular team meetings?
- 04Where can residents and families find information about how to raise a concern?
- 05How have you checked that the improvements made during the inspection have continued?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings from the previous inspection were used to calculate the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 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.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found clear infection controls during a COVID-19 outbreak.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 13 January 2022. It was carried out because of a COVID-19 outbreak and focused on infection prevention and control, as well as staffing pressures.
Inspectors found the home was clean and had clear infection control information. Staff were seen wearing personal protective equipment correctly, and regular testing was taking place for staff and residents.
The home was judged safe for infection control, but the service was not given a rating. This inspection did not provide an overall rating or ratings for the other areas of care.
Clean environment
The home was clean and inspectors saw cleaning records supporting the cleaning process.
“The home was clean. We saw evidence of cleaning records to support the cleaning process around the home.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff were seen wearing personal protective equipment correctly, and inspectors were assured that it was being used safely.
“We were assured the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Testing and outbreak controls
The home was accessing regular testing for staff and residents. Inspectors were also assured that the home had arrangements to prevent and manage infection outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was taking steps to effectively prevent and manage infection outbreaks.” from the report
Clear guidance
Infection control signs were prominent and gave helpful information about good practice.
“The home had prominent and clear infection prevention control (IPC) signs with helpful information and best practice guidance.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What measures are currently in place if COVID-19 causes staffing pressures?
- 02How often are staff and residents tested, and what happens after a positive result?
- 03How do you check that staff and visiting professionals meet the current vaccination requirements?
- 04How are visits managed during an infection outbreak?
- 05How do you keep cleaning records and check that infection control measures are followed?
This was a targeted inspection triggered by a COVID-19 outbreak and focused on infection prevention and control and staffing pressures; it did not rate the service overall or assess the other four questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 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.
Every inspection of Fairfax Road
3 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 December 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leeds
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 £1,250 a week. 89 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Took his time to learn about me read my care plan and to listen to me. great companionship with lots of laughing.”
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.