CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Fairlight Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely and safeguarding concerns were reported and investigated. Two of the three lifts were broken during the inspection, but staff had made contingency arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff had suitable training and supervision. People were supported with food, drink, healthcare, oral hygiene and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed warm and caring interactions. People and relatives said staff were kind, respectful and involved them in decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's preferences, communication needs and personal histories. People were supported with activities, relationships, complaints and end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management systems had improved, including medicines audits, quality checks and electronic care records. Staff and relatives described improvements in leadership, although some staff had mixed views about support from the provider.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with major improvements since the previous Requires Improvement rating.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 7 and 9 June 2022. They spoke with 12 people, eight relatives and 17 staff. They reviewed care, medicines, staff records and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from avoidable harm, received their medicines as prescribed and were supported by trained staff.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. People had access to healthcare, food and drink suited to their needs, activities and support at the end of life.
The rating improved from Requires Improvement. Earlier concerns about medicines, records and management oversight had been addressed. The report says the home was no longer in breach of Regulations 12 and 17.
Improved medicines systems
The report says medicines were previously not always managed safely, but new systems and audits were now embedded. People received medicines as prescribed and records were accurate.
“This system was sustained and embedded and had improved safe management of medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm interactions and found that staff protected people's dignity, privacy and independence.
“People were treated with kindness and respect, and their equality, diversity and human rights upheld.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, histories and preferred ways of communicating. Staff showed that they knew people well.
“People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Good activities and social support
People could take part in regular activities, personalised sessions and religious or cultural events. Staff also offered support to people at risk of isolation.
“People were supported to develop and maintain friendships, follow their interests and take part in activities relevant to them.” from the report
Better management oversight
The home had improved its quality checks, record keeping and follow-up of incidents. This helped managers identify problems and take action.
“This had improved managerial oversight and the overall governance of the home.” from the report
Broken lifts
needs fixingTwo of the three lifts were broken during the inspection. Staff made alternative arrangements, but families should check whether repairs have been completed.
“For example, two of the three lifts in the home were broken at the time of the inspection.” from the report
Staff vacancies
minorThe home had vacancies and was recruiting more staff. Inspectors found staffing was sufficient at the time, but families may want to ask about current staffing and use of agency workers.
“Although the service had vacancies, the manager had active plans to recruit more staff.” from the report
Registered manager not yet in post
needs fixingThere was no registered manager at the inspection. The manager was applying to register, and the report says the application was approved after the inspection.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
Mixed views about provider support
minorStaff generally described improvements, but some staff felt the provider was not often visible or easy to approach. Families may want to ask how staff concerns are handled.
“Staff continued to express mixed views about support offered by the provider.” from the report
- 01Have all three lifts now been repaired, and what arrangements are used if a lift stops working?
- 02How many staff vacancies are there now, and how often are agency or bank staff used?
- 03Is there now a registered manager, and who is responsible for the home when that person is away?
- 04How are medicines audits and electronic care records checked to make sure the improvements remain in place?
- 05What activities are currently available at weekends and for people who prefer one-to-one support?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control, and checking whether earlier registration conditions had been met. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 July 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, November 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found better falls and infection control, but medicines management and leadership still posed concerns.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 7 September 2021 and an announced follow-up on 13 September 2021. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led, after concerns about moving and positioning and earlier legal breaches.
The home had improved its management of falls, infection control, moving and positioning, and risks to people's health. People were protected from abuse and staff generally treated people with kindness. However, staffing shortages sometimes caused delays in support.
Inspectors found serious medicines problems. One person went without a prescribed pain medicine for 15 days, and on some occasions pain relief was not given or was delayed for more than three hours. Records and checks were also not always reliable.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. The other areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were carried forward.
Better falls management
Risks from falls were identified and reviewed. Staff had clearer guidance, and equipment and referrals were used to reduce the risk of harm.
“Enough improvement had been made at this inspection in relation to falls management and infection prevention and control practices.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home used protective equipment safely, managed visits and admissions safely, and had arrangements to prevent or manage infection outbreaks.
“People were protected from the risk of infection and cross contamination.” from the report
Kind care from staff
People and relatives valued the care staff's hard work. Inspectors observed staff interacting with people in a kind, compassionate and respectful way.
“People told us how much they valued the hard work and dedication of the staff.” from the report
Safer moving and positioning
Staff had guidance about the equipment people needed and demonstrated safe skills when helping people move. Wounds had improved where people needed wound care.
“People were supported to move and position in a safe way.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The manager used falls, audits and earlier inspections to make changes. Monitoring falls helped lead to changes that reduced falls for some people living with dementia.
“The registered manager was open and transparent when care had not gone according to plan.” from the report
Delayed or missing medicines
seriousOne person went without a prescribed pain medicine for 15 days. On other occasions, pain medicine was not given when the person was in pain, or was delayed for more than three hours.
“One person had been prescribed medicines to help manage pain. Staff were not aware medicines had been delivered and although the person had received their other prescribed medicines, they had gone without this type of medicine for 15 days.” from the report
Weak oversight and records
seriousChecks did not always identify medicine problems or delays. Records of repositioning and other care were not always completed accurately, so they could not always be relied on.
“Records were not always consistently maintained to provide assurances of the care people had received.” from the report
Staffing shortages
needs fixingPlanned staffing levels were based on people's needs, but sickness and staff turnover meant actual staffing levels were not always maintained. People sometimes waited for support.
“The provider's planned staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs, yet levels were not always maintained due to staff shortages caused by sickness and staff turnover.” from the report
Inconsistent leadership
needs fixingPeople, relatives and some staff reported that the provider could lack empathy and did not always listen or provide support. Staff also did not always have enough electronic devices to record care at the time it was given.
“The provider had not always ensured their values and vision for the service was consistently implemented.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure prescribed medicines are in stock and that pain relief is given promptly when someone is in discomfort?
- 02What staffing levels are actually being achieved on each shift, and what is the plan when sickness or staff turnover causes shortages?
- 03How do you check that repositioning and other care records are completed accurately and at the time care is provided?
- 04What changes have been made to leadership and communication in response to concerns from people, relatives and staff about empathy and support?
- 05Are there now enough electronic devices for staff to record care in real time?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key questions were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 November 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 Nursing Home
7 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2021Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 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
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.