Fairfield Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. We observed staff were compassionate and respectful with people. Some people we spoke with felt treated with kindness and dignity. One person shared, “They are very kind and take care of us,” while another described staff as “So lovely’.” Comments from relatives included, “They [staff] are very much like family, they not only look after [Name] but they look after me as well,” “[Name] is treated with dignity and kindness,” and “[Name] went in there from the hospital. I visited the following day [Name] was sat up in a chair getting their hair combed and looking well.” Staff we spoke with demonstrated their commitment to maintaining safe and effective care. However, one staff member reported they worry as people sometimes looked uncared for and unhappy. Another member of staff told us, “We always try to promote dignity and respect, but lack of time and support makes it difficult.” Some people told us they felt isolated and not listened to. One person raised concerns about being treated without dignity and privacy due to the physical environment of their room.We heard some staff referring to people by their room numbers and not their preferred name, which detracted from personalisation and the sense of identity within the living environment.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always consider people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Professional partners told us preferences and choices are considered in care delivery, supporting personalised care. However, care records we looked at did not include sufficient detail of people’s history to help inform staff about their hobbies, interests and cultural preferences. Personal history sections within care plans were generic and lacked depth. For example, one person’s care plan included vague instructions like “staff to ask”. However, staff’s knowledge of the people they supported was evident in how they spoke about them, sharing details about their likes, dislikes. One staff member said, “As a staff team we have built up a good rapport with all our residents and include them in their care needs. You learn a lot from each person.” Some people told us they appreciated the variety and of activities, including quizzes and music. One relative said, “There are daily activities in the home and [Name] fully enjoys these.” However, while some people felt recognised and supported, others reported feeling bored, anxious, and overlooked. There was mixed feedback from relatives on personalisation. Some relatives felt their family members were treated as individuals. However, one relative told us “I think they could talk to [Name] a bit more, spend more time with them.”

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. People were not always supported to have choice and control over their care and make day to day decisions about all aspects of their lives. Care plans we reviewed did not sufficiently reflect people’s preferences or routines. Some people felt supported in daily routines, but others mentioned limitations due to mobility, lack of facilities, and staff practices. Staff were described by most people as respectful of preferences and choices, with one person commenting, “They are a nice bunch and know what I like.” However, one person expressed frustration about preferring to wash themselves but then being washed by staff again when they did not want to be.Another person told us that, on the day we visited, they had been made to get up and get dressed earlier than they would have liked. One relative we spoke with felt their family member was supported to make choices within the limits of their condition. We observed the environment did not consistently support personalisation. Room doors lacked names or identifiable markers, which could make it difficult for people to recognise their own rooms. The home manager told us this was something they were focusing on to improve.

The provider did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Staff monitored people’s health and wellbeing daily. We saw staff providing responsive, kind and caring support. However, people and their relatives raised concerns about delays in addressing requests, for example window blinds and hygiene concerns. Some people reported feeling unheard or left in bed for extended periods, and feedback from relatives highlighted missed opportunities to support people to go outside or engage in meaningful activities due to staffing limitations. In one instance, a person expressed frustration, saying, “I am just left here.” Another person commented on the lack of interaction and choice, particularly around food and bathing preferences. The care planning process did not consistently reflect strategies for responding to distress or refusal of care. For example, some care plans advised staff to “leave and try again later” without specifying timeframes or escalation steps, which could lead to inconsistent responses and increased risk.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff and did not always support and enable staff to always deliver person-centred care. A buddy system and cultural representative initiative promoted inclusion. We found a wedding party was held for people and staff which demonstrated a positive and inclusive culture. Some staff shared they feel happy and well-supported in their roles. Comments included, “I find management approachable, friendly and accommodating, I am happy here,” and “They [Home Manager and Deputy Manager] are both fair and approachable.” However, others expressed staff morale is currently low due to recent changes. One staff member said “Staff morale is very bad. Everyone is so down.” Some staff reported favouritism, intimidation, and a lack of respect from leaders towards staff. They expressed concerns about management style. One member of staff told us they feel fearful in their work environment.