CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Fairhaven
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Recruitment checks, safeguarding arrangements, risk assessments, staffing levels and medicine systems were found to be safe. Safety checks and accident reviews were also in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training, induction and supervision suited to their roles. People had their health needs assessed and were supported to access healthcare and make their own decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and knew people well. Inspectors saw people being treated with dignity and given time and attention.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were individual and had been updated when needs changed. The home had fixed the previous problem with incomplete care plans and unclear behaviour guidance.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager, clear responsibilities and systems for checking quality. People and staff were encouraged to share their views.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care and confirmed that earlier care-plan problems had been fixed.
Inspectors visited on 9 and 25 October 2018. The first visit was unannounced. They spoke with five people, staff and the registered manager. They also checked care records, medicines, staff files, training, complaints and safety records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people received individual care from staff who knew them well. People were involved in daily life, including preparing meals and choosing activities.
At the previous inspection, the home breached Regulation 9 because some care plans were incomplete and did not give clear guidance about behaviour that could be challenging. Inspectors found that the home had followed its action plan. Care plans were now clearer and the legal requirements had been met.
The report says there was no evidence of serious risks or concerns. The service remained Good overall, and the Responsive rating improved to Good.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm and friendly interactions. People said staff treated them well and knew how to support them.
“The relationships between staff and people receiving support demonstrated dignity and respect at all times.” from the report
People have a say
People were involved in decisions about the home and in everyday activities such as cooking, shopping and choosing what to do.
“People were encouraged to be involved in the running of the service and to make decisions about how it operated.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received induction, ongoing training and supervision. Records showed that training was up to date.
“Staff were well trained to make sure they had the skills and knowledge to effectively support people.” from the report
Clearer care planning
The home had acted on the previous inspection findings. Care plans now included clearer guidance about behaviour and were reviewed when needs changed.
“We saw that people's care plans contained clear behavioural guidelines.” from the report
Good management checks
The registered manager monitored accidents, incidents, health and safety and other areas for improvement. Actions were recorded and followed up.
“All identified areas for improvement were clearly documented and followed up to ensure they were completed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How often are care plans and behaviour guidance reviewed, and what happens when a person's needs change?
- 02How do you make sure there are enough staff during the day and at night for community activities and individual support?
- 03How are medicines checked, including medicines given only when needed?
- 04How are people involved in choosing meals, activities and decisions about the home?
- 05How can relatives raise a concern, and how will they be told what action was taken?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five areas, with visits on 9 and 25 October 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 January 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, October 2016
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, but care records were incomplete.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 23 August 2016. They spoke with three people, the deputy manager and four staff members. They observed care and checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines, staff records, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for being safe, effective, caring and well-led. People said they felt safe, staff were kind and skilled, medicines were managed safely, and there were enough staff. People were supported with food, healthcare, family contact and activities.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being responsive. Some care records were incomplete, out of date or did not explain clearly how staff should support people. This was a breach of Regulation 9, although staff were able to describe people's needs from their experience of working at the home.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. There were enough staff, staff understood safeguarding and risks were assessed and reviewed.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff protected people's privacy and dignity and built positive relationships. Inspectors saw frequent, friendly interactions and quick responses to requests.
“Staff showed kindness, patience and respect to people.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received induction, supervision and training, including training linked to mental health needs. People said staff understood how they wanted to be supported.
“Staff were provided with the training and support they needed to carry out their work effectively.” from the report
Good support with choice and independence
People were involved in their care and supported to cook, clean, manage laundry, use community facilities and keep in touch with relatives.
“Staff sought to enhance people's independence and involvement in the community and involve them in the way the service was run.” from the report
Care plans lacked important detail
seriousSome plans did not explain what staff should do when people experienced difficult behaviours, negative symptoms or self-harm risks. This could lead to inconsistent support.
“The lack of guidance about how staff should be supporting people could lead to inconsistencies in care delivery.” from the report
Some records were not current
needs fixingSome records were incomplete, undated or had not been signed to show staff had read them. This made it difficult to know whether the information was current.
“Some care records were not dated so it was not possible to determine if these were current.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure every care plan is complete, dated and regularly updated?
- 02How do care plans explain the triggers and effective support for behaviours that may be challenging?
- 03What guidance is now recorded for supporting people who experience negative symptoms, anxiety or self-harm risks?
- 04How do you check that staff have read and understood each person's current care plan?
- 05What action did you send to CQC after the Regulation 9 breach, and what was the outcome?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; inspectors checked care records for three people and staff records for four staff members. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 October 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 Fairhaven
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 November 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,020 to £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.