CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Fairways
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, September 2023
Inadequate and in special measures; inspectors found people at risk from unsafe care systems, medicines, recruitment and weak management oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 1 and 6 June 2023. Inspectors spent two days at the home, observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care plans, staff files and safety and quality records.
The home was rated Inadequate for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found incomplete care plans and risk assessments, unsafe medicines systems, gaps in recruitment checks, and weaknesses in fire safety, security and emergency planning. They found no evidence that people had been harmed, but said people were at risk of harm.
The home had some positive features. People and relatives said they felt safe, staff were kind and attentive, infection control was good, and the manager was learning from falls and reporting serious incidents. However, the home remained in breach of regulations from the previous inspection, when it had been rated Requires Improvement.
Kind and attentive staff
People and relatives said they felt safe and described staff as kind and patient. Inspectors also found there were enough staff around according to relatives.
“Sufficient staff about and the staff are so kind and patient, always the same regular staff.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and managing infection risks, including using protective equipment safely and supporting safe visits.
“The management of infection prevention and control was good.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The manager was reviewing falls and looking for patterns. An improvement plan was also in place for general work and changes needed after things went wrong.
“The manager was reviewing falls to check the circumstances to see if lessons could be learned to reduce falls in future.” from the report
Action after inspection findings
The provider took steps during and after the inspection to improve fire safety, update emergency evacuation plans and address a medicines authorisation issue.
“The provider responded immediately and acted during and after the inspection.” from the report
Care plans and risk assessments
seriousCare plans were not complete, current or person-centred. Staff might not have understood people's needs and risks, which could have led to harm.
“Care plans were not person-centred, complete, and up to date.” from the report
Medicines management
seriousPaper and electronic medicines records were being used at the same time. Time-specific medicines were not always given correctly, records did not always match stocks, and one person's covert medicines lacked current authorisation.
“Medication systems were not safe.” from the report
Fire, emergency and security risks
seriousInspectors found an unsafe rear exit, combustible materials next to the building, outdated emergency plans, an unlocked secure outdoor area and a missing window restrictor.
“There was not a safe exit from the rear of the building for people to use.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousRecruitment files did not consistently show references, suitability checks, DBS details or full employment histories. This meant the home could not always show that staff had been recruited safely.
“Staff recruitment was not safe and consistent.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousThe quality assurance system was new and not embedded, policies were out of date, and there was no registered manager in post at the inspection.
“Systems had not been established to ensure good governance, to continuously learn, and improve care.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make the rear fire exit safe, remove combustible materials and keep all emergency plans and evacuation plans up to date?
- 02How are medicines now recorded and checked while the home moves from paper records to electronic records?
- 03How do you check that time-specific and as-needed medicines are given correctly and that their effects are recorded?
- 04Can you show that every member of staff has the required references, DBS checks and full employment history recorded?
- 05Who is currently responsible for management, and what evidence shows that the new quality assurance system is now working?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other key question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 September 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, March 2022
Fairways: Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good visiting arrangements but gaps in visitor checks and PPE use.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control. The report gives an inspection date of 10 February 2022 on the front page, and 11 February 2022 in the inspection details.
The home supported face-to-face and virtual visits, regular COVID-19 testing, and access to health professionals. Staff had infection control training, and the home had policies, cleaning schedules and supplies of personal protective equipment.
Inspectors were not assured that visitors were being checked properly, or that staff always used PPE safely. Records of negative lateral flow tests and temperatures were not always kept, and visiting professionals were not routinely asked for proof of vaccination.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit focused on infection control and did not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most of the five questions.
Family visits
The home supported face-to-face visits in line with government guidance and also offered virtual visits.
“The home facilitated face to face visits, in line with government guidance.” from the report
Testing and vaccination
People and staff were tested regularly for COVID-19. Staff employed by the home had been vaccinated.
“People and staff were tested regularly for COVID-19. Staff employed at the home had been vaccinated, to help keep people safe from the risk of infection.” from the report
Infection control systems
The home had infection control policies, audits, cleaning schedules and supplies of appropriate PPE.
“Infection control policies and audits were in place to ensure the home reflected best practice and current guidance.” from the report
Visitor checks
needs fixingRecords did not consistently show negative lateral flow tests or visitors' temperatures. Checks on professional visitors did not routinely include vaccination status and symptoms.
“Improvements were needed to ensure evidence of a negative lateral flow test was recorded and people's physical health such as temperature was also recorded.” from the report
PPE was not always used correctly
needs fixingInspectors saw staff not consistently wearing face masks correctly, including not wearing them or pulling them down when talking.
“However, during the visit we observed staff were not consistently following the correct use of PPE such as face masks.” from the report
Professional visitor vaccination checks
seriousThe home did not routinely ask visiting professionals for proof of COVID-19 vaccination, despite the requirement described in the report.
“The service was not meeting the requirement to ensure visiting professionals were vaccinated against COVID-19.” from the report
Some areas needed redecoration
minorSome parts of the building needed redecoration so they could be cleaned or disinfected effectively.
“However, some parts of the home needed to be redecorated to ensure they could be effectively cleaned or disinfected.” from the report
- 01How do you now record visitors' negative lateral flow tests and temperatures?
- 02How do you check the vaccination status and symptoms of visiting professionals?
- 03What changes have you made to ensure staff wear PPE correctly at all times?
- 04Which parts of the home needed redecoration, and has this work been completed?
- 05What support did you receive from the local authority Infection Prevention and Control team after this inspection?
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 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.
Every inspection of Fairways
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Requires improvement to Inadequate.
- September 2023Inadequatecurrent ratingSafe: InadequateEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: InadequateWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- May 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 March 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
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.