CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Fairways
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe and staff responded to requests for help. Staff raised concerns about staffing levels, and inspectors recommended that these should continue to be reviewed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and support, people could choose meals and received help with eating and drinking, and healthcare advice was recorded and followed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives praised the kindness of staff. Inspectors saw people treated with dignity, involved in their care and supported to maintain independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reviewed regularly. Activities, visiting arrangements and end of life support were available, although easy-read and pictorial information was not readily available.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found a divide in the staff culture and poor working relationships involving senior care staff. Management had taken action, but inspectors found that some problems had not been identified through the home's own checks.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but the well-led rating was Requires Improvement because of staff culture and oversight concerns.
This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 16 and 17 July 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also checked care plans, medicines, recruitment records and management documents.
The home was rated Good overall for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors found personalised care plans, support for people's choices, good links with health professionals and a wide range of activities.
The well-led rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement. Staff described a poor working relationship between care staff and senior care staff, including concerns about bullying. Staff also repeatedly said there were not enough staff, although inspectors found little evidence that this had affected people at the time.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors also observed staff treating people with dignity and respect.
“People and relatives praised the care and told us staff were kind and caring towards them.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans gave detailed information about people's individual needs and preferences. They were organised, current and reviewed monthly.
“People's support plans were personalised and contained detailed information on how to meet their specific needs.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could join planned and one-to-one activities, with links to the surrounding community and outside organisations.
“The service had built good links with external professionals and the surrounding community.” from the report
End of life support
End of life wishes were recorded, and inspectors heard positive feedback about the compassion shown to people and families at this time.
“We saw documentation around end of life wishes recorded and the compassion shown by the staff at this time was praised.” from the report
Staffing levels
needs fixingStaff repeatedly said there were not enough staff. Inspectors found minimal impact on people during the inspection, but recommended continued review of staffing and deployment.
“Staff consistently raised with us that they felt there was not enough staff.” from the report
Staff culture
needs fixingMany care staff described poor relationships with senior care staff and said concerns about bullying had not been dealt with well. Management took action after the inspection, but the issue led to the lower well-led rating.
“The majority of care staff that we spoke with disclosed a poor working relationship between them and the senior care staff.” from the report
Information was not always accessible
minorEasy-read documents and pictorial menus were not readily available for people who needed information in those formats.
“Although other formats could be sourced, we saw these materials were not readily available, such as easy read documents or pictorial menus to aid people who needed information in this way.” from the report
Hoist repair had been delayed
seriousStaff reported that a hoist had not been working properly for around 12 weeks and described it as dangerous to use. The repair was completed during the inspection.
“Staff made us aware of a hoist that was not working properly and said this had been the case for around 12 weeks.” from the report
- 01How are staffing levels and staff deployment reviewed when people's needs change?
- 02What has been done since the inspection to improve relationships between care staff and senior care staff?
- 03How can people who need easy-read or pictorial information access menus, activities and complaints information?
- 04How do you make sure equipment such as hoists is repaired promptly and remains safe to use?
- 05How are concerns raised by staff identified and followed up through the home's quality checks?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the previous overall rating was Good, with Safe improving from Requires Improvement and Well-led falling from Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 August 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, January 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, effective care, but staffing levels meant the safety rating was Requires Improvement.
Inspectors visited the home on 10 and 16 November 2016. They reviewed care records, staff records and management systems, observed care, and spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals.
People were generally positive about the care. Inspectors found staff were kind and respectful, medicines were managed safely, care plans reflected people's needs, and activities and complaints arrangements were available.
The main problem was staffing at busy times, especially mornings and lunch. Some people waited for meals, ate separately from others, or waited for call bells to be answered. The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Good in the other four areas. The provider had addressed the two breaches found at the previous inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff ask permission, protect privacy and remain calm and compassionate.
“People and relatives told us staff were kind, attentive and caring.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Staff were trained and assessed as competent to give medicines. Records, audits and arrangements for disposal were in place.
“Medicines were managed safely and people told us they received their medicines on time.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The provider had acted on the two previous breaches. Inspectors found improvements in infection control and in support with eating and drinking.
“At this inspection we found the provider had made the required improvements.” from the report
Personalised care and activities
Care plans included people's routines, likes, dislikes and preferences. People could choose from a range of activities and relatives were involved where agreed.
“Each person's care plan was based on their needs, abilities, likes, dislikes and preferences.” from the report
Some care plan detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not explain clearly enough how particular support should be given. The home had identified this and arranged further training.
“There were some inconsistencies in the level of information in some care plans.” from the report
Information about the new manager
minorPeople and families thought the home was well managed, but staff said they had not been given information about the newly appointed manager. Some staff also said the absence of a permanent manager had affected morale.
“Staff felt it had been an unsettling time with both the previous manager and deputy leaving.” from the report
- 01How many staff are on duty during the morning and lunch, and how do you check that this is enough for people's needs?
- 02Has the dependency tool introduced after the inspection improved call bell response times and meal service?
- 03How do you make sure care plans explain clearly how each person's support should be provided?
- 04Who is currently managing the home, and how are people, relatives and staff kept informed about management changes?
- 05What changes were made after the previous inspection's concerns about infection control and support with eating and drinking?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five quality areas and providing an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 January 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 The Fairways
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 April 2013.
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 two hours of Wiltshire
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 £1,340 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Linet became her carer and all changed, my daughter started eating, taking her medications and more important her happiness came back.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.