Archived: Fairfield House

Updated 2 March 2022

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.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at how services manage infection control and visiting arrangements. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection prevention and control measures the provider had in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 22 February 2022 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection.

Updated 2 March 2022

The inspection took place on 1 February 2018 and was unannounced.

Fairfield House is a care home in Newcastle that provides accommodation and care for up to 11 people with support needs relating to their mental health. There were nine people using the service at the time of inspection.

At our last inspection in December 2015 we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

People who used the service felt safe and there were appropriate risk assessments and systems in place to ensure risks were reduced and lessons were learned from incidents. People’s needs, such as medicines, the premises and staffing levels and pre-employment histories were managed safely.

There was effective liaison with external primary and secondary healthcare professionals, with people achieving good health and wellbeing outcomes. Documentation was generally accessible and sufficiently detailed, with a range of appropriate training and staff support in place.

Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People who used the service received an excellent continuity of care from staff who knew their needs extremely well and had built mutually trusting relationships with them. Feedback from relatives and external professionals was exceptional in this regard. People who used the service had developed improved independence and confidence with the help of dedicated and compassionate staff. People’s emotional wellbeing was respected and supported by staff and a registered manager who consistently exceeded good standards of care and ensured people could thrive in a caring environment.

The atmosphere at the home was welcoming and calm. Staff interacted warmly with people who used the service and demonstrated an in depth understanding of peoples likes, dislikes and individualities. People received a continuity of care from a well-established staff team.

The service had built good community links, which afforded people who used the service a range of learning and social opportunities. There were plans to build on these in the future.

The registered manager and deputy manager lead the service well, combining hands-on day to day responsibilities and accountability with a commitment to pursuing continuous service improvement. Staff confirmed they were well supported and people who used the service interacted comfortably with staff at all levels, including management. The culture was in line with the provider’s literature, caring and with a focus on people achieving and maintaining independence.