CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Fairland House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Fairland House rated Good overall; inspectors found people safe and well cared for, but management checks needed improvement.
Inspectors visited the home without advance notice on 20 July 2022. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files and other documents.
The overall rating was Good. The home was rated Good for Safe. People told inspectors they felt safe, safeguarding procedures were in place, and lessons had been learned from incidents. However, daily records had gaps, some people waited for support, and medicines records and checks were not always complete.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. New online monitoring systems had not yet been fully embedded. They missed problems with daily records and medicine fridge temperatures, and some staff were unclear about their roles. The manager took action on the issues raised during the inspection.
The previous overall rating was Good, published in February 2020. This inspection was part of a random review after a recent monitoring assessment. The CQC made a recommendation about quality monitoring, but did not record a regulation breach or enforcement action.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and well cared for. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and had regular training.
“People told us they felt safe and well cared for living at the service.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans and risk assessments were individualised. People and their families were involved in reviews and plans reflected preferences and support needs.
“People had individualised care plans and risk assessments.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home acted on incidents and used learning to reduce the chance of them happening again, including adding checks and equipment where needed.
“Action had been taken and lessons learnt following incidents that had occurred.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw positive interactions between the management team and people living in the home. People, relatives and staff described the home positively.
“We observed positive interactions between the registered manager and people living at the service.” from the report
Incomplete daily records
seriousDaily records had several gaps, including oral hygiene records. Inspectors said this increased the risk that people might not receive the correct care.
“People's daily records had multiple gaps this left people at risk of not receiving the correct care, due to poor record keeping.” from the report
Medicines recording and checks
seriousRecords did not always show where creams were applied, whether medicine patches had been removed, or that refrigerated medicines were kept at the right temperature. The manager addressed the concerns by the end of the inspection.
“Medicines management was not always safe.” from the report
Waiting for support
needs fixingSome people said they waited too long after using their call button. Inspectors also saw people waiting in shared areas for staff to help them move elsewhere.
“We witnessed people having to wait in the dining room for staff to support them back to their room or the lounge.” from the report
Tired areas
minorThe care environment was clean, but some parts of the building needed updating. The home had a development plan for improvements.
“Some areas of the home were tired and needed refurbishment.” from the report
- 01What has changed to make sure daily care records, including oral hygiene records, are completed every day?
- 02How do you now check creams, skin patches, 'when required' medicines and refrigerated medicines are recorded and managed safely?
- 03How do you make sure people do not wait too long after pressing their call button?
- 04How are the new online monitoring systems being used to find problems before they affect people's care?
- 05What are the separate responsibilities of seniors and team leaders, and who should staff report concerns to?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the report does not give current ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 September 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, February 2020
Fairland House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care and clear improvements, with some minor shortfalls still to address.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 18 February 2020. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were managed better, staff were kind and trained, people's care was personalised, and the home had stronger systems for checking quality.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in February 2019. The home was no longer in breach of regulations. Inspectors did identify some smaller issues, including staffing pressure at times, unpleasant odours in some areas, and incomplete knowledge about when safeguarding incidents must be reported to CQC.
Improved safety
Inspectors found that risks to people's safety had been assessed and managed well. This was an improvement from the previous inspection.
“Risks to people's safety had been assessed and actions taken to reduce them as much as possible.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and understood their routines, likes and dislikes. Inspectors saw people treated with kindness and respect.
“They took time to get to know the people they supported to ensure that care was delivered in line with their needs, preferences and routines.” from the report
Personalised care and activities
Care records reflected people's current needs and preferences. People were supported to maintain interests, see visitors and take part in activities, including one-to-one activities.
“For those people who preferred to stay in their rooms, the activities co-ordinator would spend some time with them on a one to one basis if they wished for this.” from the report
Stronger management checks
The home had introduced more regular checks of medicines, care records, weights and equipment. Complaints, accidents and incidents were also analysed to look for patterns.
“Improvements had been made to the governance systems and the registered manager performed several regular audits to monitor the quality of care provided.” from the report
Safeguarding reporting knowledge
needs fixingThe registered manager did not fully understand which safeguarding incidents had to be reported to CQC. One incident that should have been reported had not been.
“However, they did not fully understand the process for reporting safeguarding incidents. We found one that should have been reported to us.” from the report
Staffing pressure at times
needs fixingSome staff said afternoons could be rushed and that they could not always respond to requests promptly. The manager agreed to keep staffing levels under review.
“Staff felt there were usually enough staff but said that on occasions, particularly in the afternoons there were times they felt rushed and not able to respond to people's requests for assistance in a timely manner.” from the report
Unpleasant odours
minorMost areas were clean, but inspectors noticed unpleasant odours in some parts of the home. Management knew about this and was taking steps to improve it.
“Most areas of the home were clean although there were unpleasant odours within some areas.” from the report
Privacy and meal preferences
minorStaff did not always knock before entering bedrooms. One person who asked for a smaller meal was given the same portion as others.
“Some staff knocked on people's bedroom doors before entering their room however, this was not consistently applied and could therefore be improved.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure there are enough staff during busy afternoons?
- 02What action has been taken about the unpleasant odours mentioned in the report?
- 03How do you now identify and report safeguarding incidents to CQC?
- 04How will you make sure staff knock before entering bedrooms?
- 05How do you record and provide each person's preferred meal portion?
This was an unannounced planned inspection based on the previous rating and covered all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 February 2020 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 Fairland House
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 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.