• Care Home
  • Care home

Fairfield Nursing Home

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

10 Quarry Road East, Heswall, Wirral, Merseyside, CH61 6XD (0151) 342 8886

Provided and run by:
Fairfield Healthcare Limited

Important:

We have taken action to serve two warning notices against Fairfield Healthcare Limited on 30 September 2025 for failing to meet the regulations related to safe care and treatment and good governance at Fairfield Nursing Home.

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Our current view of the service

Inadequate

Updated 22 July 2025

Date of Assessment: 11 August 2025 to 9 September 2025. The service is a residential and nursing home providing support to older adults living with dementia and disabilities. The service can accommodate up to 30 people. At the time of the assessment 29 people lived in the home.  This was an unannounced, responsive assessment due to concerns we had received from relatives and members of staff about leadership and management, poor culture, management of medicines, neglect, infection prevention control (IPC) issues and staff conduct.

At the last assessment the provider was previously in breach of the legal regulations in relation to the need for consent, fit and proper persons, medicines management, risk management and governance.

During this assessment, we identified breaches of the legal regulations in relation to person centred care, safe care and treatment, and good governance. This service has been placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide. In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded.  

We shared our concerns with leaders during the assessment. They took immediate action to begin addressing cleanliness issues and implementing changes to improve the safety of the environment and care planning and risk assessment documentation.

Although structured and regular audits were in place, we identified a gap between leadership intentions and operational delivery in key areas. Governance systems were not effective in driving improvements, particularly in infection control, cleanliness, medication safety, environmental risks, and record keeping. Lessons from the previous assessment and internal reviews had not been embedded into practice. We observed unsafe evacuation plans, unresolved environmental hazards, poor hygiene despite cleaning records being signed off, and reliance on generic care plan templates. Care records contained repeated contradictions, omissions and dismissive language about people, demonstrating the provider had not established a culture of continuous improvement or acted effectively on previous regulatory concerns.

We found safety issues, including unlocked hazardous storage areas, faulty locks, and environmental hazards such as trip risks, broken fixtures, and uncontrolled access to outdoor areas and maintenance tools. Infection prevention control was poor, with improper Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) use and disposal, and we observed dirty equipment throughout the home.

Personalisation was not consistently promoted in the environment. People’s bedroom doors were not labelled with their names or identifiers, making it difficult for them to recognise their own rooms. Our review of care plans highlighted recurring problems in communication, risk management, person-centred planning and emergency preparedness. Care plans did not always include detailed, personalised information about the support people needed with medicines or provide accurate, up-to-date information on the medicines prescribed.

Some staff members we spoke with raised concerns about time pressures that limited their ability to review care plans and complete documentation. They told us they felt some risk assessments lacked clarity regarding the level of risk and appropriate mitigation strategies.

The provider had established processes for escalating safeguarding concerns promptly and sharing lessons learned with the wider team. Professional partners confirmed these were discussed during contract meetings.

Staff recruitment followed appropriate procedures, and agency staff were inducted and supervised effectively. Staff had the right skills and experience to meet people's needs.

We observed staff consistently interacted with people in a kind, respectful, and patient way. They offered encouragement, reassurance, and used humour appropriately, which helped create a calm and supportive environment. One staff member told us, “I love my job, and I love the resident’s.”

People's experience of the service

Updated 22 July 2025

Most people we spoke with told us staff treated them kindness and respect. The activities coordinator was praised for their engagement with people and creativity. Some people told us they felt supported to make choices about daily routines and personal care. However, others described limitations due to the facilities available. These included restricted food options, having to wake earlier than preferred, limited access to bathing facilities, and a lack of environmental privacy.

Relatives described staff as professional, emotionally supportive, and attentive to people’s needs. The home was praised for being secure. Comments included, “The care staff are wonderful and are always welcoming and friendly and provide excellent care and attention,” “Generally they look after [Name] well, they make sure they are neat and tidy, [Name] is well looked after there,” and “I think the staff work very hard and work long hours.” However, we received mixed feedback from people and their relatives around raising concerns. One relative told us, “Yes, [our views are listened to] most of the time, but there have been a few issues, but it’s sorted out now.” Another relative said, “[Name] feels a bit nervous about speaking out because they have brought things up before and nothing as been done about it.”

Some people could not directly tell us about their experience. For people who were unable to communicate with us verbally, we used the Short Observational Framework Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a structured observation tool designed to help inspectors understand the experiences of people who may not be able to express themselves verbally, often due to conditions such as dementia. This approach showed staff interacted with people in a patient, caring and respectful way. People were actively engaged and enjoying activities.