Fairfield House

Updated 12 March 2019

The inspection: We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team: One inspector carried out the inspection.

Service and service type: Fairfield House is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission at the time of the inspection. However, a new manager had recently started, and they were in the process of applying to become the registered manager for Fairfield House. This means that they and the provider will be legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection: This inspection was unannounced.

What we did when preparing for and carrying out this inspection: We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about, such as abuse; and we sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We assessed the information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection, we spent time with people in the communal areas of the home and we saw how staff supported the people they cared for. We spoke with one person living at the home, to gain their views about the care provided. We also spoke with two provider representatives, the manager and six care staff. In addition, we sought the views of one health and social care professional, who regularly supports people who live at the home.

We reviewed a range of records. This included two people's care documents and multiple medication and records. We also looked at records relating to the management of the home and checks undertaken by the registered manager. For example, systems for managing any complaints, checks on medicines administered and the provider’s audits on the care provided, and action plans arising from these.

Updated 12 March 2019

About the service: This service supported people with learning disabilities and/or autism.

The home was bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to seven people. Seven people were using the service at the time of the inspection. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by how the building was used. There were no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff did not wear anything which suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

What life is like for people using this service:

• A new manager had been appointed. The new manager advised us they were in the process of applying to become the registered manager for Fairfield House.

• People were at ease with staff, and enjoyed spending time with them.

• There had been changes in the staff caring for people. However, staff rotas had been arranged so people were always supported by staff who knew them well, as people started to develop caring relationships with new staff. There were sufficient staff to care for people at times to suite people.

• People were confident to ask for assistance and reassurance from staff when they wanted this.

• Staff promoted people’s rights to privacy and dignity and encouraged people’s independence.

• People made their own day to day choices and decisions. These included how people chose to spend their time, and what interesting things they wanted to do.

• Where people needed support to make some decisions staff and other health and social care professionals assisted them, focusing on what was best for people living at the home.

• Staff understood people’s preferred ways of communicating and supported them to develop their communication skills, further. This had led to people experiencing enhanced confidence when communicating.

• People were supported to stay as safe as possible by staff who understood risks to people’s safety.

• The risk of infections and accidental harm was reduced, as staff used their knowledge and the equipment provided to do this.

• People were supported to have their medicines safely and checks were undertaken to ensure these were administered as prescribed. People’s medicines were regularly reviewed.

• Staff had been supported to develop the skills they needed to care for people, so people’s care needs would be met.

• People had enough to eat and drink to remain well. People were encouraged to decide what they wanted to eat and were supported to choose from a healthy range of snacks.

• Staff supported people to see other health and social care professionals. This helped to ensure people experienced good health outcomes and a sense of well-being.

• People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this.

• People were supported to keep in touch with relatives and others who were important to them and had opportunities to do things which they enjoyed in the community. Staff encouraged people to try new experiences which they may enjoy.

• The views of people, relatives and other health and social care professionals were considered when people’s care was assessed, planned and reviewed. This helped to ensure people’s needs and preferences continued to be met.

• Systems were in place to take any learning from complaints, concerns or suggestions, to further improve people’s care.

• Staff worked with other health and social care professionals when considering the care people wanted at the end of their lives. The manager planned to further develop the processes to support people at the end of their lives, so their wishes would be responded to.

• Other health and social care professionals told us the manager had developed good links with other organisations who regularly supported people, and said staff focused on the needs of people living at the home.

• The manager and provider checked the quality of the care provided and sought suggestions for improving people’s care further. Suggestions were listened to and acted on. Where actions had been identified these were completed, so people benefited from care which continually developed to meet their needs

•We found the service met the characteristics of a “Good” rating in all areas; For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection: Good. The last report for Fairfield House was published on 13 September 2016.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained rated Good overall.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.