CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Fairholme
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, PPE, testing, admissions and managing infection risks. They found that some bathroom and toilet facilities needed refurbishment so they could be cleaned effectively.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found strong infection-control measures, but some bathrooms and toilets needed refurbishment.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 28 July 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care.
Inspectors found systems to reduce infection risks. This included extra cleaning, regular testing, suitable protective equipment and support for people to understand infection-control measures. Visits followed current government guidance.
The overall rating was Good. However, Safe was inspected but not rated, and this report did not assess the other four questions. Some bathroom and toilet facilities needed refurbishment so they could be cleaned effectively.
Infection-control systems
The home had systems to prevent infections spreading among people, staff and visitors. Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed.
“Systems were in place to prevent people, staff and visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Cleaning
Extra cleaning was taking place across the home, including frequent cleaning of surfaces that people often touched.
“Additional cleaning of all areas and frequent touch surfaces was being carried out regularly.” from the report
Protective equipment and testing
Staff used suitable protective equipment and took part in regular testing. Supplies of protective equipment were described as sufficient.
“Staff wore appropriate PPE and the service had ample PPE supplies.” from the report
Bathroom and toilet refurbishment
needs fixingSome bathroom and toilet facilities needed refurbishment so they could be cleaned effectively. The manager had recognised this and plans were in place to address it.
“Some of the bathroom and toilet facilities needed refurbishment so they could be cleaned effectively.” from the report
- 01Which bathroom and toilet facilities need refurbishment?
- 02When will the planned refurbishment be completed?
- 03How are those facilities being cleaned effectively while the work is pending?
- 04What were the service's ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led at its most recent full inspection?
- 05How are staffing pressures linked to COVID-19 being managed at present?
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; the other four questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 August 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.
What inspectors found, December 2017
Rated Good across all five areas; inspectors found safe, caring and effective support, with more work needed on activities.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 23 October 2017. They spoke with people living in the home, staff, relatives and health and social care professionals. They also checked care plans, medicines, staff records, training, audits, policies and maintenance records.
The home supported up to 22 adults with enduring mental health problems. There were 20 people living there during the inspection. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines procedures, suitable training and good access to healthcare. The home was clean, and improvements had been made to bathrooms, communal flooring and bedrooms.
People and relatives described staff as caring and respectful. Care plans were personalised and people were involved in reviews. Activities were available, but relatives and inspectors felt there could be more opportunities focused on each person's interests and independence.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was an improvement from Requires Improvement and followed action on medicines and the condition of the premises identified at the previous inspection in September 2016.
Medicines safety
Medicines processes were safe and records checked by inspectors were accurate. Staff understood people's medicines needs.
“The storage, administration and disposal of medicines was safe.” from the report
Caring staff
People and relatives praised staff for being caring, respectful and understanding. Staff had built strong relationships with the people they supported.
“People who used the service and their relatives were consistent in their praise of dedicated, caring staff, with whom they had developed strong relationships.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's interests, relationships, likes and dislikes. People were involved in care planning and reviews.
“We saw care plans were person-centred.” from the report
Leadership and improvement
The manager and deputy worked well together, supported staff and used audits to identify and address problems. The service had improved since the previous inspection.
“There were good levels of quality assurance and accountability in place for all aspects of the service and people's care.” from the report
More activities and independence
minorActivities were varied, but some relatives and inspectors felt there should be more individual and person-centred opportunities. The home acknowledged that more could be done.
“There was a consensus that the provider could still do more to ensure there were a range of person-centred opportunities for people to purse activities meaningful to them.” from the report
Lift and front steps
minorThe front steps were relatively steep and the lift was not in use. This did not affect anyone living there at the inspection, but repairs and handrails were planned.
“We noted the steps at the front were relatively steep and that the lift currently was not in use.” from the report
- 01What individual activities are now available for the person I am considering placing here?
- 02How do you help people build independence and prepare for more independent living?
- 03Has the lift been repaired, and have handrails been installed by the front steps?
- 04How are medicines checked now, including controlled drugs and 'when required' medicines?
- 05How are people and their relatives involved in reviewing care plans and choosing activities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating, with checks of care, medicines, staffing, training, records, premises and management. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 December 2017 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 Fairholme
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017Goodup from Requires improvement
- October 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of South Tyneside
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 £1,140 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.