Fairland House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Whilst we observed some caring interaction which enhanced peoples well being we felt that staff had not had enough support or direction from management to enable them to recognise and meet peoples needs effectively. A good example of this was the activities coordinator who had some previous experience of care and some really good ideas. However, they were working largely unsupported and there was no real evaluation accept self-evaluation of the activities they were providing on people’s wellbeing. Staff had training in dementia care, but this was very basic and there was a lack of detailed guidance to support staff to meet peoples needs. We found the environment stimulating and nicely laid out but it was underutilized and time spent with people were around tasks such as support with personal care and meals rather than time speaking to people and enhancing their wellbeing. There were very few examples of community engagement and no transport for the home making it difficult to people to access their local communities.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Kindness, compassion and dignity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

Most people were not able to share their experiences with us although we did carry out observations throughout the day and saw people were well supported to eat and drink enough for their needs but had concerns about the timeliness of care and the lack of social stimulation provided to people. We also felt there were some restrictive practices relating to independent access to the stairs and lifts. We spoke with family members who did not have concerns about individual staff but did have concerns about poor communication and interaction, poor care which did not uphold people’s privacy and dignity and poor management over time which did not fill them with any confidence and left people without a voice or any influence over service delivery.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.