CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Fairview Farm
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risk assessments, staffing, recruitment checks and medicines management were found to be safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support from trained and supervised staff. Their dietary, health, communication and consent needs were taken into account.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions and supported to be as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences, goals and needs. People had choices about activities and received support to take part in community life.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager and staff felt supported. Audits, feedback and notifications were being used to monitor and improve the service.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 28 March 2019. One inspector visited, spoke with seven people, two relatives and five staff, and checked care records, recruitment files 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 harm, supported by trained staff, involved in their care and helped to live independently.
The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement in September 2017. Problems with medicines, staff recruitment, notifications and quality checks had been addressed and inspectors found the changes had been sustained.
The home is larger than current best practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said the design and setting reduced the possible negative impact of its size.
Safe medicines and staffing
Inspectors found that medicines were stored and given safely, records were accurate and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
“Records showed there were consistently enough staff on site to meet people's needs promptly and safely.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, take part in activities and outings, and manage some medicines themselves where this was safe.
“People were supported in the least restrictive way possible.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff spent time getting to know people and respected their privacy, dignity, equality and personal preferences.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, goals and preferred ways of receiving support. Families were involved where appropriate.
“People, and where applicable their relatives, were fully involved in developing and reviewing support plans.” from the report
Improved management
The report says earlier concerns about medicines, recruitment, notifications and quality assurance had been addressed and sustained.
“At this inspection we found that changes had been made and sustained.” from the report
The home is larger than current guidance
minorThe home was registered for up to 22 people and 19 people were living there. Inspectors noted that its size was larger than current best practice guidance, although they said the building and setting reduced the impact.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
Oversight of incidents had needed improvement
minorThe report says there had been an issue because the manager was not always aware of accidents and incidents. The form was changed so incidents received management review.
“An issue was identified where accidents/incidents had taken place but the registered manager wasn't always aware of them.” from the report
- 01How does the home make sure its larger size does not affect people's choice, independence or quality of life?
- 02How are accidents and incidents recorded, reviewed and followed up by the manager?
- 03How will you involve my relative and our family in creating and reviewing their care plan?
- 04What activities and community outings would be suitable for my relative?
- 05How would my relative be supported to manage their own medicines, if they were able to do so safely?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection that looked at the premises and care and rated all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 May 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 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective care but medicines, recruitment and management needed strengthening.
This was an announced inspection on 25 July 2017. Inspectors spoke with 11 people living in the home, four care workers, managers and three relatives. They also observed care and checked care, staffing, training and quality records.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were treated kindly and with respect. Staff had suitable training, supported people's health needs, involved them in care decisions and helped them enjoy activities and stay in touch with relatives.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found 14 medicine errors in the previous 12 months, gaps in some recruitment checks and weaknesses in quality monitoring. The registered manager had not been overseeing the home for the previous month. The provider also failed to notify the CQC about significant events, which was a breach of Regulation 18.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with compassion and respect. Staff also protected people's privacy in bedrooms, bathrooms and during personal care.
“We saw that people were treated with compassion, kindness and respect.” from the report
Trained staff
Staff had introductory, refresher and development training. Inspectors found that they had the knowledge and skills needed to support people.
“We found that care staff knew how to care for the people who lived in the service.” from the report
Support with health and meals
People had help to see doctors and other health professionals. They were offered meal choices and staff checked that people at risk received enough food and drink.
“People said and records confirmed that they received all of the help they needed to see their doctor and healthcare professionals including chiropodists and opticians.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were supported to take part in day opportunities and activities such as swimming, bowling and horse-riding. Everyone was offered the chance to go on holiday.
“Furthermore, each person had been offered the opportunity to go on holiday and we saw a lot of photographs which showed people enjoying their time away.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found that planned shifts had been filled and people received help promptly. Staff also knew how to respond to abuse and safeguarding concerns.
“We concluded that the service was being staffed in the right way.” from the report
Medicine errors
seriousThere had been 14 occasions when medicines were not given correctly in the previous 12 months. Errors included giving medicines at the wrong time and not checking that people had used them.
“Records showed that care staff had made various mistakes including not administering medicines at the right times and not carefully checking that people had actually used medicines that had been given to them.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment checks
seriousFor three new care workers, employment histories were not detailed enough. One required check had not been completed, so the provider could not fully confirm their suitability before employment.
“These shortfalls had limited the registered person's ability to assure themselves about these applicants' previous good conduct and to confirm that they were suitable people to be employed in the service.” from the report
Weak oversight and reporting
seriousThe provider did not tell the CQC about several significant events. Quality checks had also failed to identify and resolve medicine and recruitment problems quickly.
“The registered person had not told us about significant events that had occurred in the service.” from the report
Limited involvement of families
needs fixingPeople and relatives were not fully involved in developing the home. The provider had not reviewed feedback from questionnaires completed in 2016.
“However, we found that people and their relatives had not always been fully involved in the development of the service.” from the report
Registered manager absent
needs fixingThe registered manager had not overseen the home for the previous month. The provider could not give a clear timescale for their return, although interim day-to-day arrangements were in place.
“At the time of our inspection visit the registered manager had not been overseeing the running of the service for the preceding month.” from the report
- 01What checks are now made to ensure medicines are given at the right time and that people have actually taken them?
- 02How do you make sure every new care worker has a complete employment history and all required background checks before starting?
- 03Who is currently responsible for the home while the registered manager is away, and when is the registered manager expected to return?
- 04How are significant events now reported to the CQC without delay?
- 05How have you used feedback from people and relatives to change or improve the home?
This was a planned, announced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including care, staffing, records and quality assurance. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 September 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 Fairview Farm
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015Inspected but not ratedSafe: Requires improvement
- May 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 December 2010.
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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.