CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Fairlight
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. There were enough staff, medicines were safely managed and infection control arrangements were in place, but six-monthly hoist checks were overdue at the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before they moved in, and staff had the training and supervision needed for their roles. People received support with food, drink and healthcare, although some people had mixed views about the food after a change of caterer.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with compassion, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions about their care and were encouraged to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and routines. People were supported to keep in touch with relatives, join activities and raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management team. The home used meetings, surveys, audits and an improvement plan to monitor quality and respond to feedback.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and well-managed support, with mixed views about food and overdue hoist checks.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 23 and 24 November 2021. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a community nurse. They also observed care and reviewed care plans, medicine records, recruitment files, policies and audits.
Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. There were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, and staff followed infection control procedures. People's needs and risks were assessed, and staff received training, supervision and support.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were involved in decisions about their care, supported to maintain relationships and offered activities. Inspectors noted mixed views about food after a change of caterer, although improvements were being made. Six-monthly hoist checks were overdue, but a contractor had been booked.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the first inspection at which the newly registered home received a rating, so there was no earlier rating to compare it with.
Enough trained staff
Staffing levels were based on people's needs and records showed planned staffing levels had been maintained. Staff received induction, refresher training, supervision and appraisals.
“The home allocated enough staff on each shift to support people safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with dignity, respected privacy and supported people to make choices. They encouraged independence where possible.
“We observed staff treating people in a dignified manner throughout our inspection.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, likes and dislikes. Staff knew how people preferred to be supported and understood their daily routines.
“People's care plans contained guidance for staff on the support people needed to have their assessed needs met.” from the report
Good management oversight
The management team used audits, feedback, meetings and an improvement plan to identify and act on issues.
“The provider had systems in place for monitoring the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Hoist checks were overdue
needs fixingSix-monthly checks of hoists had not been completed by the inspection. The provider said this was linked to pandemic restrictions and had booked a contractor to complete the checks after the visit.
“Whilst these checks were overdue, we confirmed that a contractor had been booked to visit and complete the work during the week following our inspection.” from the report
- 01Have the overdue six-monthly hoist checks now been completed, and were any problems found?
- 02What changes have been made to the menu since inspectors recorded mixed views about the food?
- 03How do you check that each person's care plan still reflects their current needs and preferences?
- 04How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care and giving feedback?
- 05What activities and support are available for someone with my relative's interests and communication needs?
This was an unannounced planned first inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control arrangements; there were no previous ratings to carry over. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 February 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, May 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that the home had good COVID-19 infection prevention measures.
Inspectors visited on 26 March 2021. This was an announced, targeted inspection during the COVID-19 pandemic.
They looked at infection prevention and control. They found enough suitable protective equipment, safe visiting arrangements, regular COVID-19 testing and staff training.
Inspectors were assured that the home could prevent and manage infection outbreaks. The home was not given an overall quality rating, and this inspection did not assess all areas of care.
Protective equipment
The home had enough suitable PPE, and staff followed national guidance when using it.
“The provider maintained sufficient stock of suitable personal protective equipment (PPE) for staff to use whilst working at the home.” from the report
Safe visiting
Visitors were screened for COVID-19, given suitable PPE and expected to follow infection control procedures.
“These included screening visitors for COVID-19, providing them with appropriate PPE, and following safe infection control practices.” from the report
Testing and outbreak planning
People and staff were tested regularly, and the provider had plans to manage a possible outbreak.
“People and staff were regularly tested for COVID-19.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had infection prevention and control training and showed inspectors that they understood how to use it in practice.
“Staff received infection prevention and control training and demonstrated awareness of how to apply this whilst working.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently screened and supported to follow infection control procedures?
- 02How often are people living here and staff currently tested for COVID-19?
- 03What happens if someone is admitted to the home with an infection risk?
- 04What is the current plan for preventing and managing an infection outbreak?
- 05What checks are carried out now to make sure PPE, hygiene and infection control remain safe?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and other areas of care were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 May 2021 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 Fairlight
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 September 2020.
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 Bromley
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. 83 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
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.