CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Fairleigh House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found environmental hazards, missing or overdue safety checks, poor medicines oversight and weaknesses in infection control. They said these issues increased the risk of harm, although no medicine-related harm was found at the inspection.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Some staff had not completed relevant training, and training records showed several courses were overdue or incomplete. People did receive support with healthcare, food, drink and communication, and their needs were assessed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were calm, kind and patient, and treated people with dignity and respect. People were supported to express their views and take part in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised, regularly reviewed and focused on people's choices and quality of life. People had communication plans, meaningful activities and support to maintain relationships and interests.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The provider's audits and governance systems did not reliably identify or fix problems with safety, medicines or training. The report also records positive relationships between relatives, staff and the registered manager.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Fairleigh House: Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but medicines, safety checks, staff training and oversight were not reliable.
Inspectors made unannounced visits on 7 and 19 December 2022. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience observed care, spoke with relatives and staff, and checked care, medicines, staff and management records. People could not tell inspectors directly about their experience, so observations were especially important.
The home provided kind and person-centred care. Staff understood people's complex needs, supported communication, provided activities and helped people access healthcare. However, inspectors found unsafe medicines systems, environmental hazards, gaps in infection control and incomplete staff training.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were also Requires Improvement. Caring was Good and Responsive was Good. The provider had to send an action plan, and the report records a warning notice under Regulation 17.
Kind and respectful care
Staff were attentive to people's emotions and support needs. Inspectors saw calm, patient and compassionate interactions.
“People received kind and compassionate care from staff who used positive, respectful language which people understood and responded well to.” from the report
Person-centred support
Care plans reflected people's choices, communication needs and longer-term goals. Families and other relevant people were involved in planning.
“People's care records were person centred and reflected people's choices.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to take part in regular social and leisure activities. Inspectors saw activities that were varied and well attended.
“People were supported to participate in their chosen social and leisure interests on a regular basis.” from the report
Enough staff on the visits
Inspectors saw enough staff to meet people's needs and wishes. The home usually used the same agency workers to provide more consistency.
“During our inspection we observed there were sufficient staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Medicines were not safely controlled
seriousRecords contained missed signatures and medicines were not always tracked. An untrained staff member was found administering medicines during an out-of-hours visit.
“The provider had failed to ensure safe systems for the management and administration of medicines.” from the report
Environmental safety risks
seriousInspectors found exposed wiring, incorrectly fixed fire alarms, an unsecured door, unsafe fire equipment and other hazards. Some important safety checks were missing, overdue or no longer up to date.
“Risks found in the home environment were not acted upon and placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Staff training gaps
seriousSome new staff were working before completing relevant training. Records also showed overdue fire safety, infection control and Care Certificate training.
“The provider had not ensured staff had completed all relevant training.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe provider's audits and training monitoring did not identify or resolve important problems. CQC said the provider did not have effective oversight of safety and quality.
“Systems and processes were not consistently effective in maintaining effective oversight of the safety and quality of the service.” from the report
Infection control concerns
needs fixingStaff were not wearing face masks in line with guidance, and visitors were not subject to some alternative infection control measures. Inspectors also found areas needing a deep clean.
“We were not assured staff was using Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) effectively and safely.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicine storage, MAR records, controlled drug logs and PRN protocols since the inspection?
- 02Which environmental hazards and overdue health and safety checks have now been completed, including fire, electrical, gas and water safety checks?
- 03How do you make sure every staff member has completed the required induction and training before supporting people?
- 04How are staff assessed as competent to administer medicines, and how often is this checked?
- 05What action has been taken in response to the Regulation 17 warning notice, and can we see the improvement plan or latest audit results?
This was an unannounced full inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the inspection was prompted in part by concerns about safety and quality. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 February 2023 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, August 2019
Fairleigh House was rated Good overall, with exceptionally responsive support but a lower Caring rating than at the previous inspection.
This was a planned inspection over two days. One inspector spoke with one person, staff, relatives and a medical professional. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff recruitment records and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. It was rated Outstanding for Responsive. Inspectors found a stable staff team who knew people well, supported their communication and helped them take part in activities at home and in the community.
People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff were trained and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. The home used detailed care plans, regular checks and specialist support. The overall rating was Good, although the previous overall rating was Outstanding and the Caring rating fell from Outstanding to Good.
Stable and knowledgeable staff
The staff team was stable and knew people's needs, communication and routines well. This helped staff recognise anxiety and support people consistently.
“People were extremely well supported by a stable, dedicated staff team who knew people, their needs and how they communicated very well.” from the report
Excellent activities and community life
People had planned activities every day, including walks, swimming, drives and lunches out. They were also supported to take part in ordinary local activities and relationships.
“People had a full itinerary of weekly activities, including walking, canal trips and drives in their own transport.” from the report
Strong personalised support
Care plans described people's routines, preferences and communication clearly. Visual planners, social stories and personalised communication tools were used.
“Clear, detailed person-centred plans and essential lifestyle plans were used to identify the support people needed and their daily routines.” from the report
Safe medicines management
The medicines records checked by inspectors were complete, and medicines were checked at staff handovers.
“Medicines administration records (MARs) were fully completed. Medicines were checked at each staff handover to ensure they had been administered as prescribed.” from the report
Regular quality checks
The provider used monthly reviews and safety checks covering areas such as care plans, medicines, activities, incidents and infection control.
“A quality assurance system was in place to monitor the service. Monthly audits and safety checks were completed.” from the report
Caring rating reduced
minorThe Caring rating fell from Outstanding at the previous inspection to Good. Inspectors still found people were treated with dignity and respect, but the change is worth discussing with the home.
“At this inspection this key question is now good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Some areas looked tired
minorThe home was an older building and some areas, including kitchen work surfaces, looked tired. Maintenance work was planned and repairs were prioritised by the provider.
“Fairleigh House is an older building and some areas, for example the kitchen work surfaces, looked tired.” from the report
- 01What restrictive interventions have been used recently, how often are they used, and how are they reviewed to make sure they remain a last resort?
- 02What maintenance work has been completed or is planned for the tired areas of the building, including the kitchen work surfaces?
- 03How would staffing be increased or changed if a person's mobility or support needs changed?
- 04How would staff communicate with a person who is non-verbal or uses their own signs, and how would the family be involved in updating this information?
- 05How are people's daily activities and community opportunities kept personalised if their interests or abilities change?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, the care provided and the premises; the previous ratings were also compared with this inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 August 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 Fairleigh House
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Outstanding to Requires improvement.
- February 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2019Gooddown from OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- January 2017OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Manchester
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 £1,260 a week. 89 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.