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's risks were assessed and reviewed. Staff were trained, staffing levels were based on people's needs, medicines were managed safely, and the home was clean and well maintained.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support suited to their needs, including help with eating, drinking and healthcare. The Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were applied in the least restrictive way.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people to make everyday choices, develop independence and use advocacy when needed.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's histories, preferences, communication needs and routines. People were supported to keep relationships, take part in activities and access the community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and provider checked care quality and acted on identified improvements. However, there was no manager registered with the CQC at the time of the inspection, and the new manager was applying for registration.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Fairfield House is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a new manager still applying to register.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 February 2019. One inspector observed care, spoke with one person, staff, the manager, provider representatives and a health and social care professional. Records about care, medicines, complaints and quality checks were also reviewed.
The inspectors found people were safe, treated with dignity and supported to make choices about their daily lives. Staff knew people well, supported communication and independence, helped people access healthcare, and supported activities, family contact and community life.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report says legal requirements were met. The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection in 2016.
Kind relationships
People appeared comfortable with staff and could ask for help or reassurance. Staff took time to understand people and support their individual lifestyles.
“People were at ease with staff, and enjoyed spending time with them.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to decide how to spend their time and what help they wanted. Care plans encouraged people to do parts of their personal care themselves where possible.
“People were supported to make their own choices about their day to day care.” from the report
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that people received medicines as prescribed and that checks and safe procedures were in place.
“People were receiving their medicines when they should.” from the report
Communication support
Staff understood people's communication needs and recorded them in care plans. The report gave an example of a person becoming more confident in communicating.
“People's communication needs were identified, recorded and highlighted in care plans.” from the report
Quality checks
The manager and provider monitored medicines, the environment and the quality of care. Actions identified through these checks were completed.
“Where actions were identified, these were undertaken, so people's needs would be met.” from the report
Size of the home
minorThe home supported seven people and was larger than current best practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said the way the building was used reduced the risk of this having a negative effect.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
Manager registration
needs fixingThere was no manager registered with the CQC during the inspection. A new manager had started and was applying to become registered.
“There was not a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission at the time of the inspection.” from the report
Health action plans
needs fixingThe manager planned to make sure everyone had an up-to-date health action plan. The report does not confirm that this work was complete at the inspection.
“The manager planned to ensure all people living at Fairfield house had an up to date health action plan in place.” from the report
End of life planning
minorThe home had not provided end of life care since the previous inspection. The manager was reviewing how people could express their wishes and how these would be supported.
“The manager told us they were reviewing how people were supported to express their end of life wishes, and had begun developing links with other organisations” from the report
- 01Has the new manager now become registered with the CQC, and who is legally responsible for the home while an application is being considered?
- 02Does the person I am considering moving in have an up-to-date health action plan, and how is it shared with health professionals?
- 03How are people's end of life wishes recorded, reviewed and acted on?
- 04How does the home’s size affect privacy, personal space and daily life for the seven people living there?
- 05How have recent staff changes affected continuity for each person, and which staff know the person well?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, including the premises and care, with all five CQC questions assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 March 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.
What inspectors found, September 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with advocacy support still being developed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 1 August 2016. The inspectors spent time with everyone living at the home, spoke with relatives, an advocate and staff, and reviewed care plans, medicines, accidents, incidents and quality checks.
Seven people were living at the home, which could support up to seven adults with learning disabilities or autism. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, suitable training and access to health care. People were supported to make choices and take part in everyday activities.
The inspectors rated the home Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspection found a good standard of care overall, although Good is not the highest rating and does not mean every part of the service was perfect.
Enough staff
Inspectors saw staff available to meet people's needs and support the activities they wanted. The provider could add staff when people's needs changed.
“At this inspection we saw staff were available to meet people's needs and to engage them in the activities they wanted.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff knew people's likes, dislikes, communication methods and histories. Support and activities were changed when people's preferences changed.
“People received care and support which was personalised to them and reflected their personal preferences.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
People were treated with warmth and respect. Staff gave people time to communicate and supported them to make everyday choices.
“People had positive and caring relationships with staff who supported and valued them as individuals.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were involved in cooking, shopping, household tasks, holidays and other activities they found interesting. This also helped them develop everyday skills.
“We saw people were engaged in activities that they found interesting and stimulating and also built on their personal living skills.” from the report
Quality checks
The provider and manager reviewed feedback, incidents and other checks. They used this information to make changes, including improving access to the kitchen.
“The provider and registered manager had systems in place to monitor the quality of service provision.” from the report
Advocacy support was still developing
minorAdvocacy services were relatively new and were still building relationships with people. Ask how this support works now and whether people can access it when needed.
“People had access to advocacy services. This was relatively new and at the time of this inspection the advocacy services was in the process of building relationships with people in order to better assist them.” from the report
- 01How has the advocacy service developed since the inspection, and how do people get help to express their wishes?
- 02What changes were made to the kitchen after the planned redesign, and how do people use it now?
- 03How do you review staffing levels when a person's needs change or they are in hospital?
- 04How are medicine errors recorded, discussed with staff and used to prevent a repeat?
- 05How are relatives involved when a person's care needs or preferences change?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and included all five ratings; the inspectors reviewed two people's care plans and spoke with one person living at the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 September 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 Fairfield House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 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
11 live-in carers within about an hour of Herefordshire, County of
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 £960 to £1,410 a week. 10 can care for a couple. 8 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.