CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Fairways
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including the use of protective equipment, testing, visiting, admissions and outbreak arrangements. The provider also said it had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, clean surroundings and support for family contact.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 25 January 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether staffing pressures were affecting the home.
Inspectors found the home was clean and well ventilated. They were assured that visitors, admissions, protective equipment, testing, social distancing and infection outbreaks were being managed safely.
Staff understood people's communication needs and helped them understand the pandemic. People were also supported to keep in close contact with their relatives.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the other main areas of care.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had measures to prevent and manage infections, including safe use of protective equipment and testing.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was visibly clean and well ventilated.
“The service was visibly clean and well ventilated.” from the report
Communication support
Staff understood people's individual communication needs and used this to help reduce anxiety during the pandemic.
“Staff had a good understanding of people's individual communication needs.” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to stay in close contact with their relatives.
“People were being supported to keep in close contact with their relatives.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing staffing pressures when staff are absent because of COVID-19?
- 02How do you keep the infection prevention and control policy up to date?
- 03How are visits currently arranged and supported for people living in the home?
- 04How do staff support my relative's individual communication needs?
- 05How do you help people maintain contact with their relatives?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 February 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, October 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some mealtime and activity improvements still needed.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit and met all eight people living in the home. They spoke with people, staff, a relative and health and social care professionals. They also reviewed care records, staff records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were supported by staff who knew their needs, respected their choices and helped them stay safe, healthy and independent.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in 2015, when it was rated Requires Improvement. Earlier problems with staff recruitment, nutrition and hydration, and suitable activities had been addressed. Inspectors noted that some improvements, particularly around activities and documentation, were still ongoing.
Safe staffing
Recruitment checks had improved, and staffing levels were adjusted when people's needs changed. Staff had the knowledge and training needed to support people safely.
“This showed that the provider took steps to ensure that there were sufficient staff available to meet people's assessed needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with patience and respect. Staff supported privacy, dignity, communication and independence.
“Staff were caring and respectful in their interactions and we saw people laughing and smiling with them.” from the report
Activities and community links
People had individual activity plans and were supported with hobbies, trips and daily living tasks. Inspectors saw people taking part in activities they enjoyed.
“Throughout the inspection we observed people participating in activities and hobbies that interested them, both on an individual and group basis.” from the report
Open management
The manager was visible and approachable. People, relatives and staff were asked for their views, and feedback was used to improve the service.
“The registered manager had instilled an open and inclusive culture within the service.” from the report
Rushed mealtimes
needs fixingInspectors found that lunch could be task-led and rushed. Staff sometimes missed chances to interact with people, and the small dining room made monitoring for choking intrusive.
“The lunch time meal we observed was at times task led and rushed.” from the report
Activities were not always consistent
needs fixingAlthough inspectors saw meaningful activities, one professional said that on several visits people appeared to have little stimulation. The home was working to improve this.
“However another professional fed back that on several visits to the service they did not see, "Activities on at the home or evidence of stimulation being provided…” from the report
Records and quality systems still developing
minorAudits had found some inconsistencies in medicine records, and the provider was developing its quality assurance and care documentation systems.
“The provider's quality assurance systems were currently being further developed to identify and address shortfalls and to ensure the service continued to improve.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure mealtimes are calm and that staff can monitor choking risks without making the experience intrusive?
- 02How do you check that each person has meaningful activities and stimulation every day, including when there are fewer staff or activities are not planned?
- 03What checks are now in place to prevent inconsistencies in medicines records?
- 04How are care plans and other documentation being improved to make sure they consistently reflect each person's choices and needs?
- 05How will you show families what has changed since the previous inspection and what improvements are still outstanding?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions; the report says the previous inspection took place on 29 July 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 October 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 Fairways
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 April 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.