CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Fairfield
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, October 2018
Fairfield was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, effective care, with some medicine records and staffing responsiveness needing attention.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 26 September 2018, followed by an announced visit on 28 September. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care and mealtimes and checked care plans, medicines, training, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff to keep people safe, kind and respectful care, good support with food and health needs, and activities that reflected people's interests.
There were some areas to improve. Staff could sometimes be slower to respond when afternoon staffing reduced. Some risk plans lacked detail, and records for medicine patches were incomplete. The provider had identified some of these issues and said it would take action.
The overall rating stayed Good, but Well-led fell from Outstanding at the previous inspection in February 2016 to Good. This followed changes in leadership, including a new manager who had applied to become registered.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff communicate well, protect privacy and dignity, and support people to make choices about daily life.
“Staff were kind and compassionate in the way they interacted with people and ensured people were comfortable in their surroundings.” from the report
Food and hydration
People had choices of food and drink. Staff offered support and prompts, and the home monitored people who needed extra help with eating or drinking.
“People's nutritional and hydration needs were met.” from the report
Activities and community life
People could take part in activities such as baking, gardening, arts and crafts and exercise. The home also provided trips and improved its garden areas.
“The provider used a recognised activity programme to ensure people received mental and physical stimulation every day of the week.” from the report
Learning from concerns
Complaints were investigated and actions were recorded. Feedback from people and relatives led to changes including improvements to activities.
“Each had been investigated and actions were recorded to use the issues raised to make overall improvements to the services provided.” from the report
Afternoon response times
needs fixingWhen one care worker was absent in the afternoon, staff could be less responsive. A relative reported a long wait when two carers were needed for the toilet.
“When staffing numbers reduced by one member of care staff in the afternoon, it sometimes meant they could not be so responsive to people's requests for support.” from the report
Incomplete medicine patch records
seriousStaff had not recorded where medicine patches were applied or checked daily that they were still in place. The manager said body maps and checks would be introduced.
“Staff had not completed records of where patches had been applied to ensure people were protected from these risks.” from the report
Risk plans lacked detail
needs fixingSome plans did not give enough guidance about behaviours that could cause anxiety to others. The manager said they would be reviewed.
“We found some risk management plans would benefit from more detail, especially those around behaviours that could cause anxiety to other people.” from the report
As-needed medicine guidance
needs fixingThe provider had identified that individual guidance was needed for as-needed medicines. Work was underway to explain when and how these medicines should be given.
“The provider had already identified this as an area that required improvement.” from the report
Leadership notifications
needs fixingThe provider did not tell CQC promptly about the registered manager's absence and did not notify CQC about three liberty safeguard authorisations. These were later treated as oversights.
“We identified that the provider had not informed us of three authorisations to deprive people of their liberty.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to afternoon staffing, and how do you check that people do not wait too long for help?
- 02How are medicine patches now recorded, including where they are applied and whether they remain in place?
- 03How are individual protocols for as-needed medicines used by staff?
- 04Have the risk plans that lacked detail been updated, and how are staff told what support to provide?
- 05Has the new manager's application to become registered been completed, and how are leadership improvements monitored?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with ratings compared with the previous inspection in February 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 October 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.
Every inspection of Fairfield
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 January 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Warwickshire
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.