CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Fairmont Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People were protected from abuse and medicines, staffing and infection control were generally managed safely. However, some risk assessments lacked detail, one post-fall observation had not been completed, and one recruitment record was incomplete.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health, dietary and care needs were assessed and supported. Staff had relevant training, supervision and appraisals, and people's consent and legal rights were considered.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind and respectful interactions. People were involved in decisions, and staff supported privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People had personalised care, communication support and a range of activities. Some care plans needed more detail, and the manager took immediate action to update them.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and provider were open and supportive during the inspection. Audits, meetings, surveys and regular checks were used to monitor the service and support improvements.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Fairmont Residential Home is rated Good overall, but Safe Requires Improvement because some risk and falls records were incomplete.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 07 January 2020. They spoke with five people, one professional and five staff. They observed care in shared areas and checked care files, staff records and other service records.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all Good. Inspectors found kind care, enough staff, suitable support with health and meals, activities, and regular management checks.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Some risk assessments did not contain enough up-to-date information, post-fall observations had not been completed in one case, and one staff application did not contain a full employment history. The home took immediate action on some of these points, but inspectors recommended further improvements.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with dignity and involved in choices about their care. Inspectors saw staff speaking kindly and responding to people in a timely way.
“We observed staff treating people with dignity and respect and their individual needs were considered.” from the report
Staffing and training
Staffing levels were described as sufficient, and staff were seen helping people promptly. Training, supervision and appraisals supported staff in their roles.
“Staff told us and records confirmed they received regular supervision and annual appraisals” from the report
Support with health and meals
People received support from health professionals, and staff followed the guidance provided. Meal choices were offered and staff supported people during meals with dignity.
“We observed professionals visiting during the inspection.” from the report
Activities and involvement
People were offered a range of activities and could choose whether to take part. Activities were taking place during the inspection, and people and relatives were asked for their views.
“We observed activities taking place on the day of our inspection.” from the report
Management oversight
The management team carried out audits, walkarounds, meetings and surveys. The provider also visited regularly and knew the staff team and people living in the home.
“A range of audits were being undertaken regularly by the registered manager and senior management.” from the report
Post-fall checks
seriousOne record showed that post-fall observations had not been completed. The manager said these observations would be carried out when needed in future.
“where one record noted a person had fallen, post falls observations had not been completed.” from the report
Incomplete risk assessments
seriousTwo people had identified risks without completed risk assessments. The manager took immediate action, but inspectors recommended that the home's approach to assessing individual risks be updated.
“we noted two people had identified risks where risk assessments had not been completed.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingOne staff application did not show the person's full employment history. The manager said future recruitment records would include this information.
“one application form had not been completed in full to reflect the full employment history of the staff member.” from the report
Some care records lacked detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not give enough detailed information about people's current needs. The manager took immediate action to update them.
“some of the care plans required more detailed information to support people's current needs.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure every identified risk has a complete and up-to-date assessment?
- 02How are post-fall observations now recorded, checked and reviewed?
- 03How have you checked that the recruitment records for all staff include their full employment history?
- 04Have all care plans been updated with enough detail about people's current needs, and how are they kept up to date?
- 05What extra information has been added to medicines audits to show that medicines are being managed safely?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the report says both the premises and the care provided were looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 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.
What inspectors found, July 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements made since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 June 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, a relative and staff. They observed care, medicines and a meal, and checked care plans, records, staffing, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, received their medicines on time and were treated kindly. Inspectors found person-centred care plans, suitable staffing, good activities and effective checks on the quality of care.
The previous inspection in May 2015 found safety and environmental problems. The home had been rated Requires Improvement and received two requirement notices. Inspectors found that the required improvements had been made by this inspection.
Safe environment
Inspectors found no safety concerns with the building or fire arrangements. People had personal emergency evacuation plans and staff understood safeguarding procedures.
“We had no concerns regarding the safety of the environment or fire procedures.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans focused on each person's needs, preferences and wishes. People were involved in planning their care, including future and end of life care.
“People's care plans contained a 'preferred priorities of care' document which was completed with people to plan in advance, their wishes for their care and support, including end of life care.” from the report
Activities and community links
People were encouraged, but not pressured, to join activities. The home supported trips out and activities matched people's preferences.
“We saw evidence of a wide range of meaningful and appropriate activities taking place both within and external to the home.” from the report
Quality checks
The home used audits, meetings and environmental checks to identify issues and improve services. Inspectors found records to be well managed.
“We saw that a wide range of audits were carried out at the home that helped inform and improve service delivery.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you keep my relative's care plan up to date and involve them in decisions about their care?
- 02What staffing levels are normally in place during the day and at night, and when do you use agency staff?
- 03How will you support my relative to take part in activities that match their interests and preferences?
- 04How are medicines checked and what would you do if a medicine error happened?
- 05How will you discuss and record my relative's wishes about future or end of life care?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 July 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 Fairmont Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.