We carried out a review of the data available to us about Fairfield Residential Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Fairfield Residential Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Robust entrance procedures were in place including, hand washing facilities, temperature recording, health check and a disinfectant mat.
The home was spotlessly clean and a rigorous cleaning schedule was in place and followed by a dedicated domestic team.
Staff had been well trained and followed robust PPE [personal protective equipment] protocols.
Due to the layout and size of the building, social distancing was in place and followed. Staff had taken steps that supported people with social distancing where ever possible.
The management were aware of zoning guidelines but did not need to implement it as no people were Covid-19 confirmed or suspected in this location.
The provider ensured there was a sufficient stock of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the vetted
supplier ensured it complied with the quality standards. Staff had infection control training and understood the correct donning and doffing procedure.
People were supported by a stable and committed team of staff whom they knew well. This helped people to recognize the individual staff with the need to wear face masks. Staff were well supported and praised the management team, comments included; "Management support has been excellent."
The provider considered risks and impact of the inspection on the individual staff members, this included around their health conditions as well as their caring responsibilities.
Additional cleaning schedules had been introduced to reflect additional tasks such as cleaning of frequently touched surfaces. Regular audits took place which led to improvements and safety. For example, a review of safe seating arrangements for people in all social areas of the home.
Regular testing for Covid-19 was conducted for both people living at the service and the staff. There was a comprehensive contingency plan of what to do in case of an outbreak.
The provider ensured people's relatives were able to stay in touch with people. For example, by using technology and through safe, face to face visits in an adapted shielded room.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This service provides care to a maximum of 29 people. People who wish to live at this care home have to be able to mobilise independently due to the layout of the building. On the day of our inspection, 16 people were living at the service.
Fairfield Residential Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good overall.
Why the service is rated Good:
The service continued to provide support in a caring way. Staff supported people with kindness and compassion and went the extra mile to provide support at a personal level. Staff knew people well and many referred to them as family. Staff respected people as individuals and treated them with dignity whilst providing a high level of emotional support. People and their relatives, were fully involved in decisions about their care needs and the support they required to meet those individual needs.
Most people were positive about the food and told us they enjoyed the meals. Where people had specific dietary needs, these were met.
The service was led by a registered manager who promoted a service that put people at the forefront of all the service did. There was a positive culture at the service that valued people, relatives and staff and promoted a caring ethos that put people at the forefront of everything they did.
People remained safe living in the home. There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and staff had time to spend with people. Risk assessments were carried out and promoted positive risk taking, which enable people to live their lives as they chose. People received their medicines safely.
People continued to receive effective care from staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them and meet their needs. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the procedures in the service supported this practice. People were supported to access health professionals when needed and staff worked closely with people's GPs to ensure their health and well-being was monitored.
People had access to information about their care and staff supported people in their preferred method of communication.
The service continued to be responsive to people's needs and ensured people were supported in a personalised way. People's changing needs were responded to promptly. People had access to a variety of activities that met their individual needs.
The registered manager monitored the quality of the service and looked for continuous improvement. There was a clear vision to deliver high-quality care and support and promote a positive culture that was person-centred, open, inclusive and empowering which achieved good outcomes for people.
This inspection took place on 7and 8 January 2016. It was an unannounced inspection.
Fairfield Residential Home provides care to a maximum of 29 people. People who wish to live at this care home have to be able to mobilise independently due to the layout of the building. At the time of our inspection 24 people were living at the home.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People told us they benefitted from caring relationships with the staff who knew how to support them. Staff were supported through supervision, appraisal and training to enable them to provide the high quality care we observed during our visit.
Staff understood the needs of people, particularly those living with anxiety or depression, and provided care with kindness and compassion. People spoke positively about the home and the care they received. Staff took time to talk with people and provide activities such as arts and crafts, games and religious services.
People were safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report concerns and the service worked with the local authority if there were any concerns. People received their medicines safely as prescribed. Staff assessed risks associated with people's care and took action to reduce risks.
There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. The service had robust recruitment procedures in place which ensured staff were suitable for their role.
The registered manager and staff were aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) which governs decision-making on behalf of adults who may not be able to make particular decisions themselves. People’s capacity to make decisions was assessed appropriately.
People told us they were confident they would be listened to and action would be taken. The service had systems to assess the quality of the service provided in the home. Learning was identified and action taken to make improvements which improved people’s safety and quality of life. Systems were in place that ensured people were protected against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care.
People were supported to maintain good health. Referrals to healthcare professionals were timely and appropriate and any guidance was followed. Healthcare professionals spoke positively about the service.
All staff spoke positively about the support they received from the registered manager. Staff told us the registered manager was approachable and there was a good level of communication within the home. People knew the registered manager and spoke to them openly and with confidence.
The registered manager led by example and had empowered staff. Their vision that the service should be a home for people, where they were safe, comfortable and included, was echoed by staff.
.
We looked at choices people were offered regarding their care, opportunities for involvement, and how diversity was recognised. We found that people were encouraged to be involved in a range of activities, and their religious beliefs were respected and accommodated. We were less certain how involved they were in their care plans.
We looked at the quality of care people were receiving and the care planning process. We found that everyone had a proper care plan that was regularly reviewed. We spoke with six people and they all said they were very happy at the home. One said 'it's like living in a five star hotel'.
We looked at how people were protected from abuse and found that all care staff had undertaking safeguarding training and felt able to report instances of abuse without fear of recrimination.
We looked at how staff were supported in their roles and found that there was an effective system of induction, training, supervision and appraisal in place.
We looked at how the provider monitored and assessed the quality of the service and found that overall it had effective systems and processes in place, but we had a question over the way it conducted internal reviews of the service.
People were having their risks assessed and appropriate actions had been taken to address these. There were recorded care plans which told staff what support and care the person required. Gaps in two people's nutritional risk assessment and weight charts, meant that the on going monitoring they were actually receiving, was not reflected in the care record. Weight charts for several other people were inspected and found to have been well maintained. People's permission had been sought before care had been delivered and arrangements were in place to protect people who lacked mental capacity. There were good arrangements in place for the safe storage and record keeping relating to medicines. Safe medicine adminstration was observed on the day of the inspection, but comments made by people who used the service suggested that practices on other days may differ. Recruitment checks had been carried out on staff before they started work and people were looked after by experienced and knowledgable staff. Appropriate notifications had been made to us in the event of someone's death and in the event of other notifiable incidents.