Archived: Fairhaven Care Home

Updated 28 October 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 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.

The inspection was unannounced and was carried out on 27 September 2016 by two inspectors.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and the improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the information in the PIR, along with other information that we held about the service including previous inspection reports and notifications. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

We spoke with five people using the service and engaged with four others, who communicated with us verbally in a limited way. We spoke with three visitors at the time of the inspection and contacted two more following the inspection. We observed care and support being delivered in communal areas of the home. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We spoke with three members of the care staff, the registered manager, the deputy manager and the cook.

We looked at care plans and associated records for three people using the service. We also looked at a range of records relating to the management of the home including three staff recruitment files, records of complaints/compliments, accidents and incidents, policies and procedures and quality assurance records.

Following the inspection we made further contact with two health professionals and two social care professionals who provided feedback.

The home was last inspected in January 2014 when no issues were identified.

Updated 28 October 2016

Fairhaven care home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 21 people, including people living with a cognitive impairment. At the time of our inspection there were 21 people living in the home, 20 of which were over the age of 65.

This inspection took place on 27 September 2016 and was unannounced.

The home is set over two floors with the first floor being accessed via stairwells and a stair lift. The ground floor has a communal lounge/dining room and a quiet lounge for people to access. There was a safe and secure sensory garden and patio for the people to use. Seventeen of the bedrooms were single occupancy and two were shared.

There was a registered manager at the home. 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.

The risks relating to people’s health and were assessed and these were recorded along with actions identified to reduce those risks in the least restrictive way. They were personalised and provided sufficient information to allow staff to protect people whilst promoting their independence.

There was a robust recruitment process in place to help ensure that staff recruited were suitable to work with the people they supported. People were supported by staff who had received an induction into the home and appropriate training, professional development and supervision to enable them to meet people’s individual needs. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and to enable them to engage with people in a relaxed and unhurried manner.

People felt safe and staff knew how to identify, prevent and report abuse. Legislation designed to protect people's legal rights was followed correctly. Staff offered people choices and respected their decisions. People were supported and encouraged to be as independent as possible and their dignity was promoted.

People, relatives, and social care professionals were positive about the service people received. Medicines were managed safely and people received these as prescribed. People were positive about meals and the support they received to ensure they had a nutritious diet.

Care plans provided comprehensive information about how people wished to be cared for and staff were aware of people's individual care needs and preferences. Reviews of care involving people were conducted regularly. People had access to healthcare services and were referred to doctors and specialists when needed. The risks relating to people’s health and welfare were assessed and these were recorded along with actions identified to reduce those risks in the least restrictive way. They were personalised and provided sufficient information to allow staff to protect people whilst promoting their independence.

People and, when appropriate, their families were involved in discussions about their care planning, which reflected their assessed needs.

Staff developed caring and positive relationships with people and were sensitive to their individual choices and treated them with dignity and respect. People were encouraged to maintain relationships that were important to them.

People’s families told us they felt the home was well-led and were positive about the registered manager who understood the responsibilities of their role. Staff were aware of the provider’s vision and values, how they related to their work and spoke positively about the culture and management of the home. There was an opportunity for families to become involved in developing the service and they were encouraged to provide feedback on the service provided both informally and through an annual questionnaire.

People and relatives were able to complain or raise issues on a formal and informal basis with the registered manager and were confident these would be resolved. This contributed to an open culture within the home. Visitors were welcomed and there were good working relationships with external professionals.

There were systems in place to monitor quality and safety of the home. Accidents and incidents were monitored, analysed and remedial actions identified to reduce the risk of reoccurrence.