Archived: Fairfield Country Rest Home

Fairfield Country Rest Home is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care for up to 32 older people. At the time of the inspection there were 29 people living at the service. The service is based in in a single storey building and is in a rural setting.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The providers and registered manager had a strong set of values which focused on supporting people in line with their preferences and needs. They knew people extremely well and made sure their care was delivered in a way which achieved good outcomes and enabled people to live their lives as they wished. These values were shared by the staff team. People were treated as individuals and staff had a good understanding of their backgrounds, personal likes and dislikes and health needs.

There were strong links with the local community and the providers were keen to maintain and develop these links. They were pro-active in identifying any local events which people might want to attend and supporting people to do this, individually or in small groups. Community groups, neighbours and relatives and friends were invited into the service to meet people and attend fetes and barbeques.

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

People and their relatives told us they considered the service to be safe and people’s health needs were met. Any changes in health were escalated to the relevant professional and relatives were kept informed.

Staffing levels were appropriate and staff responded quickly to any requests for support. The atmosphere was friendly and calm. We observed staff spending time chatting to people and checking on those who preferred to spend the majority of time in their room.

People received their medicines as prescribed. We identified areas for improvement in medicine records and have made a recommendation about this in the report.

Activities were provided and people were encouraged to take part in various social events, both in and outside of the home. The premises were clean and well maintained. The large gardens were accessible and there was garden furniture for people to use in the summer. A children’s play area had been developed to encourage families to visit.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (report published 31 August 2017)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

We carried out this comprehensive inspection on 2 August 2017. At the last inspection, in July 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The service is required to have a registered manager and at the time of our inspection a registered manager was 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they were happy with the care they received and believed it was a safe environment. The atmosphere was calm and relaxed. People had good and meaningful relationships with staff and management and staff interacted with people in a caring and respectful manner. The registered manager and provider were committed to providing a high standard of care to people and ensuring they had a good quality of life. People’s wishes in respect of their end of life care were known, documented and acted upon.

The provider, registered manager and staff had a comprehensive understanding of people's preferences and what was important to them. They used this knowledge to ensure people were supported and cared for in a way which reflected their personal wishes. Care was developed around individual’s needs and took into account what was important to people’s emotional well-being. People were able to make day to day choices about where and how they spent their time. There were opportunities to express opinions and suggestions about how the service was operated and these were acted upon.

Relatives were welcomed into the service and people were supported to maintain relationships with those who mattered to them. Relatives told us they were kept fully informed of any changes in their family members’ needs. The registered manager supported people to have regular contact both inside and outside of the service.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff completed a thorough recruitment process to ensure they had the appropriate skills and knowledge. There was a stable staff team in place who knew people well. A relative told us; "I know all the staff names, there is consistency."

The premises were arranged to meet people’s needs. People had access to quiet areas or were able to socialize with others in the conservatory or large lounge. The gardens were pleasant and accessible. Garden furniture was provided so people were able to sit outside if they wished. Bedrooms were well maintained and furnished to reflect people’s preferences.

People received their medicines on time. Medicines administration records were kept appropriately and medicines were stored and managed to a good standard. Staff supported people to access healthcare services such as occupational therapists, GPs, chiropodists and dieticians. Relatives told us staff always kept them informed if their family member was unwell or if a doctor was called.

Any risks in relation to people’s care and support were identified and appropriately managed. Care plans contained information about people’s individual support needs. Staff were skilled at recognising any changes in people's needs and action was taken to continue to ensure people's well-being.

There was a daily choice of menu and people told us they enjoyed their meals. When necessary food and fluid records were kept to help ensure people received enough to eat and drink.

Management and staff had a good understanding of the underlying principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The management structure provided clear lines of responsibility and accountability. Staff had a positive attitude and told us they enjoyed their jobs and worked well together. People and relatives all described the management of the home as open and approachable.

People and their families were given information about how to complain. There were effective quality assurance systems in place to make sure that any areas for improvement were identified and addressed.

On the day we visited we were told there were 30 people living in the home and all the rooms were occupied. The home is registered for 32 people as they can take two couples but this was not required at this time.

We found that the people living in the home had their dignity protected when receiving personal care. We also saw that people were spoken to with respect and they were involved with the service and their care planning.

We found that people's care and welfare needs were being met and there were suitable plans in place that described clearly what was required for their needs to be met.

We found the home had a clear policy and practices in place to ensure vulnerable people's needs were safeguarded.

Staff were suitably trained and supported to delivery safe and effective care.

Staff said they were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and received appraisals and supervision to promote good practice.

The home had systems in place to ensure the quality of the service was being maintained and monitored. We found that the home had carried out an audit of the falls and people had been referred for support as required.

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and staff acted in accordance with their wishes.

People we spoke with who lived at the home said that their care and welfare needs were being well met. Comments included: 'My needs are met and the staff are marvellous'; 'I have been here for eight years and love it'; 'Best home around here'; 'If I need help the staff are always available' and 'I like living here, the staff are nice.'

Medicines were safely administered. We saw the medication administration records which were appropriately signed by staff when giving a person their medication.

The home believed in the importance of having the right staff to meet the needs of people living at Fairfield Country Rest Home.

Care records were stored securely in order to protect people's confidentiality.