Fairland House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We were not assured that people using the service had their needs assessed regularly and when they were, they lacked the involvement of the individual or a suitable family member. Care plans didn’t always give a true reflection of the needs of people who were using the service and we found duplications or inconsistencies. The manager and deputy had ideas on how to improve the environment and communication with people within the service and they had acted in some areas and implemented change, however there was still areas that needed to be addressed. People working in the service felt they have been supported by new management to implement changes and improvements to the environment, however there were discrepancies in care records and staffs knowledge of people preferences who were using the service.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We spoke to staff onsite and offsite and a lot of the staff felt that although there was a new management structure in place, they had been supported to implement change to improve the environment for people using the service. There was a new admission on the day of the onsite inspection and a staff member said “There was a new admission last night and his care plan has everything in it, They are now starting to review all the care plans” This showed that there is a known improvement needed for the care plans however there was a discrepancy when speaking to the staff about any people using the service that smoked. We had reviewed a care plan that recorded someone did smoke, initially we were informed that there was no one that uses the service that smokes and then when speaking to other staff we were told there was a different individual that smoked. This raised concerns around fire risk and lack of communication.

On reviewing the processes there was no evidence of involvement of people using the service discussing and reviewing their care needs with the staff, there was no evidence of feedback through surveys or resident meetings. Care plans were up to date but had a lot of contradicting information in them. One persons care plan recorded they were diabetic, insulin controlled and then it recorded that there diabetes was controlled via their diet. This didn’t assure us that there was robust processes in place and could put people within the service at risk. The manager informed us they were aware of the issues we raised and going forward would review all care plans and continue to at least 6 monthly. There was no clear process in place to support the wellbeing on the staff within the service and we spoke to the provider about this concern and they said they had planned to hold 1 to 1 supervisions with all the staff to gain an understanding of their wellbeing.

There was a lack of communication between management and people using the service and their families, they weren’t always aware of the management structure, and they hadn’t been involved in regular care plan reviews and some people we spoke too were not aware they could review the care records. There was no regular resident or relative meetings within the service, and this contributed to the lack of communication. People using the service sometimes felt restricted, one person using the service said they didn’t use their door into the garden as it was alarmed and that they were checked on every hour through the night, when their care needs were minimal and didn’t feel this was necessary.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.