CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Fairfield House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support and regular safety checks, but some medicines guidance and employment history checks needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and supported people to make choices, develop independence and access healthcare. One condition of a person's Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation was not being met because activities offered were not recorded.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with dignity and respect and were involved in their care planning. Staff supported people's religious, cultural and personal needs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and people had choice about their routines, food, activities and time in the community. People knew how to complain and complaints were acted on.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management checks did not always identify problems with care records, equipment, medicines guidance or the communal environment. The manager was available and supportive, and had introduced stronger accident and incident monitoring.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Fairfield House was rated Good overall, but inspectors found weaknesses in management checks and records.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection. Inspectors spoke with five people, three staff members and the manager. They reviewed four care records, medicines records, staff files, training records and other management records.
People said they felt safe and spoke highly of staff. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, appropriate medicines support and care that promoted choice, independence and community access. Staff were trained and understood people's needs.
The ratings were Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because checks did not always identify problems with care records, equipment, medicines guidance and the communal environment. The overall rating stayed Good, as the other areas were rated Good.
Kind and respectful staff
People spoke highly of staff and said they were well supported. Inspectors observed positive interactions and found that staff respected privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“People felt well supported and spoke highly of the staff team” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions about their care, daily routines and community activities. Staff also helped people develop practical skills and greater independence.
“People were supported to be independent.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were managed in line with people's health needs and prescribers' instructions. Staff had training and regular checks of their medicines practice.
“Medicines were managed safely to ensure people received them in accordance with their health needs and the prescriber's instructions.” from the report
Staff skills and support
Staff had relevant training and qualifications. New staff completed induction, and staff said they received regular supervision.
“People were supported by competent, knowledgeable and skilled staff who had the relevant qualifications to meet their needs.” from the report
Management checks missed problems
needs fixingChecks of communal areas had not taken place, even though worn carpets needed attention. Another check had not identified that a person needed a shower chair.
“However, audits of the communal areas had not taken place and there was maintenance work that was required, for example, carpets were worn.” from the report
Care records needed more detail
needs fixingCare plans and risk assessments were being updated, but at least one reviewed plan still lacked enough information about the person's health needs.
“People's care plans and risk assessments required improvement, to ensure they contained enough detail about people's needs and preferences.” from the report
Some medicines guidance was incomplete
needs fixingA small number of 'as needed' medicines protocols did not explain clearly enough which signs or symptoms should lead to the medicine being given. Staff understood the process, and the manager said the protocols would be amended.
“We found a small number of protocols that required additional information to identify signs and symptoms of when to administer the medicine.” from the report
Activity records were incomplete
needs fixingThe manager could not show that one person had been offered activities as required by a condition of their authorisation. The manager referred the matter to the local authority and introduced new recording documents after the inspection.
“The registered manager was not able to demonstrate a person was offered activities.” from the report
Medicine storage location
minorMedicines were stored in the dining area, which inspectors said could create an infection control risk. The manager said the medicines would be moved.
“Medicines were stored in the dining area of the home.” from the report
- 01Have all care plans and risk assessments been updated with enough detail about each person's health needs and preferences?
- 02Have communal area audits started, and have the worn carpets and any other maintenance issues been dealt with?
- 03Have all 'as needed' medicines protocols been amended to include the signs and symptoms for giving the medicine?
- 04How are activities offered and refused now recorded, especially where this is required by an authorisation condition?
- 05Has the person who was showering while sitting on the toilet received a suitable shower chair?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided; the previous overall rating from 2016 was also considered. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 June 2019 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 House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
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 7 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 Dudley
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 £1,230 a week. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
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.