Archived: Fairview House Residential Home

Updated 8 April 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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.

The inspection was unannounced and was undertaken by one inspector. The previous inspection of Fairview House Residential Home was in August 2014. There were no breaches of the legal requirements at that time.

Prior to the inspection we looked at the information we had received about the service in the last year and notifications that had been submitted by the service. Notifications are information about specific important events the service is legally required to report to us. We reviewed the Provider Information Record (PIR). The PIR was information given to us by the provider. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, tells us what the service does well and the improvements they plan to make.

During our inspection we spoke with nine people living in the service. We spoke with the manager, the deputy manager and five other members of staff (including care staff, catering and housekeeping staff).

We conducted a Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI provides a framework for directly observing and reporting on the quality of care experienced by people who cannot describe this for themselves. We did this because some people were not able to tell us about their experiences of living in the service.

We looked at four people’s care documentation and other records relating to their care. We looked at three staff employment records, training records, policies and procedures, audits, quality assurance reports and minutes of meetings.

Because we had not been provided with a list of health and social care professionals who were involved with the service we contacted them after the inspection. We asked them to tell us their views of the service. We received little feedback but comments have been included in the body of the report.

Updated 8 April 2016

This inspection took place on 11 February 2016 and was unannounced. The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 24 people. The home is a converted Victorian house and is adjacent to Fairview Court Care Home run by the same providers. The facilities are over three floors and there is lift access to the upper floor. There are two shared bedrooms and 20 bedrooms for single occupancy. Some of the bedrooms have en-suite facilities. At the time of our inspection there were 22 people living in the home.

There was not a registered manager in post. The manager from Fairview Court Care Home was in the process of applying to be the registered manager and will be supported by a newly appointed deputy manager. 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.

Improvements were required with the management of some medicines to ensure they were administered to people safely. The arrangements in place for the re-ordering of some people’s medicines were disorganised and raised the risk of a medication error being made. Medicine administration charts were not always completed correctly.

All staff received safeguarding adults training and were knowledgeable about safeguarding issues. They knew what to do if there were concerns about a person’s welfare and who to report their concerns too. The manager had previously worked well with the local authority safeguarding team when concerns were raised. Safe recruitment procedures were followed to ensure only suitable staff were employed. The appropriate steps were in place to protect people from being harmed.

A set of risk assessments were completed for each person and where risks were identified a care plan was written to reduce or eliminate that risk. Some people had other risk assessments and management plans in place where specific needs were identified. The premises were well maintained and regular maintenance checks were completed.

The number of staff on duty was based upon the care and support needs of the people at any given time. Staff felt that the staffing numbers were sufficient and this meant they had enough time to meet people’s needs. People were safe because the staffing levels were sufficient.

Staff completed a programme of the provider’s mandatory training to ensure they had the necessary skills and knowledge to care for people correctly. New staff completed an induction training programme and there was a programme of refresher training for the remaining of the staff. Care staff were encouraged to complete nationally recognised qualifications in health and social care.

People were encouraged to make their own choices and decisions and to maintain their independence for as long as possible. An assessment of each person capacity to make decisions was made and people were always asked to consent before receiving care. We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were provided with food and drink they liked and met their own particular requirements. People were encouraged to eat well and where required were provided with fortified food and drinks. There were measures in place to reduce or eliminate the risk of malnutrition or dehydration. Arrangements were made for people to see their GP and other healthcare professionals when they needed to.

People had good relationships with the staff who looked after them. Each person had a keyworker who would link with the person’s family or friends. People were given the opportunity to take part in a range of different meaningful activities. There were group activities and external entertainers visited the service on a regular basis.

Assessment and care planning arrangements ensured people were provided with care and support that met their needs. Daily records were maintained which evidenced the support delivered to each person. Staff always received a handover report at the start of their shift which made aware of any changes in people’s needs.

The staff team was led by an experienced manager and a newly appointed deputy. Staff were provided with good leadership and the manager was visible and available within the service. Regular staff meetings were to be re-introduced to keep the staff up to date with changes and developments in the service.

The registered provider had a regular programme of audits in place which ensured that the quality and safety of the service was checked. These checks were completed on a daily, weekly or monthly basis.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.