CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Fairmount
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were identified and reviewed, safeguarding systems were understood, staffing was assessed according to people's needs and medicines were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care was delivered in line with guidance and people's outcomes were reviewed. Staff received induction, training, supervision and specialist training, and people were supported with food, health appointments and hospital care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. They supported privacy, independence, communication and involvement in decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and personalised. People were supported with activities, communication, complaints, relationships and end-of-life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open culture, regular audits and management checks. Staff and relatives said management was approachable and that they had opportunities to give feedback.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Good in every area; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care with strong management.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 29 May 2019. Two inspectors observed care, spoke with three staff and reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment, training, audits and other documents. They also spoke with relatives after the visit.
The home supported six people with learning disabilities and complex needs, including autism. Inspectors found that people were supported to make choices, build independence and take part in activities they enjoyed. Staff knew people well and communicated in ways people could understand.
The home had effective safety systems, including risk assessments, medicines checks, safeguarding procedures and suitable staffing. Inspectors also found kind and respectful care, good support with health and food, detailed care plans and an open management culture.
The overall rating was Good, and all five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous inspection in August 2016 was also rated Good. CQC said it would review the home in line with its approach for Good services.
Personalised communication
Staff adapted how they communicated and used each person's own words, tools and preferences. This helped people express choices and receive consistent care.
“Each care plan contained clear guidance to inform staff how people communicated their needs and how staff should engage with them” from the report
Promoting independence
People were supported to make everyday choices, take part in household tasks and develop skills. Activities were adapted to individual interests and abilities.
“People where provided with opportunities that enabled them to gain independence and supported them to pursue new skills.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk management
The home had detailed risk assessments, regular reviews and strong systems for ordering, storing, giving and disposing of medicines.
“There were robust systems in place for ordering, storing, administering and disposing of medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff respond calmly and compassionately. Privacy and dignity were part of the home's everyday approach.
“Respecting people's privacy and dignity was embedded into the culture of how care was provided at Fairmount.” from the report
Good oversight
Regular audits, management visits and staff feedback were used to monitor quality and make improvements.
“The service had a comprehensive system of key quality audits to monitor care documentation, safety and quality of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you communicate with my relative using their individual communication tools, words or signs?
- 02What staffing levels would my relative have at different times, including when going out or attending activities?
- 03How would you support my relative to develop independence and take part in activities they enjoy?
- 04How would you manage my relative's specific health risks, medicines and any specialist dietary needs?
- 05How would you support my relative during a hospital admission or other change in health setting?
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection covering the premises and care provided, with all five CQC questions rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 June 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.
What inspectors found, September 2016
Rated Good in every area; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some dignity and sensory-space issues to follow up.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 9 and 11 August 2016. They observed care, used an observation method for people who could not communicate verbally, reviewed care plans and records, and spoke with people, staff and managers.
They found enough trained staff, safe medicines management and detailed risk assessments. People appeared happy and relaxed. Staff knew people's needs well, supported their health and communication, and helped them take part in activities and decisions.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors noted that one staff member did not always use language that protected dignity. They also identified that there was no communal sensory area and that minor door safety work was still awaiting action.
Kind and familiar support
Staff had built strong relationships with people and understood their personal histories, preferences and ways of communicating.
“It was clear staff had spent considerable time with people, getting to know them, gaining an understanding of their personal history and building rapport with them.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans recorded detailed daily preferences, communication needs, risks and personal goals. They were reviewed regularly with involvement from families and other professionals.
“Support plans detailed how people had chosen to receive care which was personalised to meet their needs, wishes and aspirations.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely, administered carefully, recorded correctly and reviewed with healthcare professionals.
“Medicines were managed safely in accordance with current regulations and guidance.” from the report
Activities and community access
People were supported to enjoy activities and interests that mattered to them, including trips, shopping, walks, horse riding and a theatre visit.
“People were supported to do the things they enjoyed and were important to them.” from the report
Good staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff and a stable team with training linked to people's learning disability, autism, mental health and healthcare needs.
“There were enough skilled and experienced staff to ensure the safety of people who lived at the service.” from the report
Respectful language
needs fixingInspectors saw several occasions when one staff member's choice of language did not protect people's dignity. The manager said this would be addressed immediately.
“one staff member's choice of language and phraseology toward people did not always respect their dignity.” from the report
No communal sensory area
needs fixingSome people had high sensory needs and used communal areas, but there was no dedicated sensory space there. The manager said they would explore creating one and had plans for a garden sensory area.
“however there was no sensory area in a communal area.” from the report
Outstanding door safety work
minorA fire risk assessment recommended replacing some internal door safety strips. The timescale had not passed, but the provider could not complete the work sooner because of its agreement with the local authority.
“the provider was unable to rectify this identified shortfall sooner due to the facilities agreement it had with the local authority.” from the report
- 01What action was taken after inspectors raised concerns about one staff member's language and respect for people's dignity?
- 02Was a communal sensory area created, either inside the home or in the garden, for people with high sensory needs?
- 03Were the internal door safety strips replaced, and who is now responsible for maintaining them?
- 04How are families involved in the six-monthly reviews of support plans and personal goals?
- 05How do you make sure staff remain up to date with training for seizures, swallowing difficulties, communication and mental capacity?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and the overall quality of the home, using observations, records, care plans and discussions with people, staff and managers. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 September 2016 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 Fairmount
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 April 2012.
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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East 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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.