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
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, enough staff, safe recruitment, safe medicines practice and effective infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff had suitable training and supervision. Nutrition, hydration, healthcare, consent and support for people living with dementia were managed well.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions and encouraged to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reviewed. People had access to activities, support with communication, help to maintain relationships and appropriate end of life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had visible and approachable management, regular meetings and audits. Its systems were used to identify issues and make improvements.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some medicine recording errors identified through audits.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 16 and 28 February 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and reviewed five care records and other documents.
Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices. Staff understood people's needs, medicines were managed safely, and there were enough staff. The home supported nutrition, healthcare, activities, communication and end of life care.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. Effective and Caring both improved to Good, while Safe, Responsive and Well-led remained Good.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse, and the home reviewed accidents and incidents to learn from them.
“People told us they felt safe and happy at the home.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm, positive interactions. Staff knew people well, respected their choices and encouraged independence.
“There was a warm and welcoming atmosphere at the home.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records included people's needs, preferences and dislikes. Staff adapted activities and communication to individual abilities and interests.
“We reviewed 5 people's care records and saw that people's current needs were identified and their preferences and dislikes across a range of areas of need.” from the report
Good activities and community links
People could take part in a varied programme throughout the week. The home also supported visits and links with local community organisations.
“There was a varied activities programme 7 days a week, supported by the activities team.” from the report
Strong oversight
The home used audits, meetings and an improvement plan to monitor care and safety. Inspectors saw that identified issues were addressed.
“We found issues were picked up and promptly addressed.” from the report
Medicine records needed checking
minorMedicine audits had found recording errors. The home gave staff support to reduce the chance of these happening again.
“Medicines audits identified recording errors and support was given to staff to reduce the likelihood of reoccurrence.” from the report
Office phone was not always answered promptly
minorFeedback from relatives identified delays in answering the office phone. The home explained busy times and why staff might be less available.
“Feedback about the office phone not always being answered promptly was considered” from the report
- 01What medicine recording errors were found in the audits, and what checks now show that they have been resolved?
- 02How will you assess and support my relative's communication and sensory needs?
- 03Which activities would suit my relative's interests and abilities, including if they are cared for in bed?
- 04How will you support my relative's dietary, cultural and hydration needs?
- 05How will you involve us in planning and reviewing end of life care?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control; it found the service met the relevant legal requirements. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 April 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, February 2021
Overall rating Requires Improvement; inspectors found good safe, responsive and well-led care, but the home had recently improved from Inadequate and Special Measures.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 29 January 2021. Inspectors checked whether the home had acted on problems found previously. They visited the home, reviewed records, spoke with staff and management, and later spoke with seven relatives and a healthcare professional.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safer medicines systems, improved care plans, infection control measures and better quality checks. Relatives gave positive feedback about the care, activities, communication and management.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. This was partly because the ratings for Effective and Caring were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection and were not assessed during this visit. The home had previously been rated Inadequate and placed in Special Measures, but it was no longer Inadequate or in Special Measures after this inspection.
Improved risk management
Risks such as falls, mobility, skin damage and personal safety were identified and staff had guidance on how to manage them.
“Risks to people were identified and managed to maintain people's safety.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors saw adequate staffing and said staff were available to support people. Relatives and staff also said staffing was sufficient.
“During the inspection staff did not appear to be rushed and were available to support people when needed.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences, cultural needs, health conditions and support needs. Staff were described as knowing people well.
“Care plans were person-centred and provided staff with guidance on how people's needs should be met.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People were supported to take part in activities such as quizzes, singing, art, cooking and films. Families were kept in touch during the pandemic through calls, video links and visits.
“I have been offered video links, phone calls and visits through a window.” from the report
Improved management
The report found better audits, clearer responsibilities and a management team that listened to feedback and acted on concerns.
“Since the last inspection, the service has made considerable improvements in relation to assessing risk, managing medicines safely, person centred care and good governance.” from the report
One unclear medicines instruction
minorInstructions for one person's as-required medicine were not clear for staff. The manager obtained advice from the GP and corrected this shortly after the inspection, and inspectors found no evidence of harm.
“For one person's PRN medicine, we found instructions were not clear for staff.” from the report
A previous telephone problem
minorOne relative said it had previously taken a long time to get through to the home by phone. The home said it had reminded staff to keep the phone with them, and the relative said this had improved.
“When we phoned the home, it took a long while to get through.” from the report
- 01How have you checked that the improvements in risk assessments and care records have continued since this inspection?
- 02How are as-required medicines checked to make sure instructions remain clear for all staff?
- 03What are the current arrangements for activities and support for people living with dementia?
- 04How can relatives contact the home quickly, and what is the process for raising and resolving a complaint?
- 05What were the ratings for Effective and Caring at the previous comprehensive inspection, and when will these areas next be reviewed?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not assessed and their previous ratings were carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 February 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 Fairmount
6 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2021Requires improvementSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- May 2020Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- May 2020Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 August 2016.
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.