Fairfield Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 54 (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 ensure that people were at the centre of their care and treatment decisions, or that decisions about responding to changes in people’s needs were made in partnership with them. We observed members of staff were caring and interacted positively with people. At mealtime each person received their meal on a tray with a personalised card detailing their name, room number, and dietary preferences. We found people who asked for assistance were supported promptly. However, we observed people sitting in the lounge for extended periods without engagement. People reported that, despite making requests, they were not provided access to baths and were instead given bed baths, which did not align with their personal preferences. Leadership acknowledged the issue, attributing it to current limitations in bathing facilities. However, they confirmed that work to install baths in newly refurbished bathrooms was actively underway. Care plans lacked meaningful detail about preferences, routines, and support strategies and did not reflect how staff should adapt care based on individual behaviours or conditions.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was flexible and supportive of choice and continuity. The provider was described by professional partners as responsive and supportive in managing referrals, admissions, and discharges, including accepting clients at the local authority rate. People were generally supported by a consistent staff team. The provider maintained links with the local community, including school visits, church groups, and shopping trips. People were supported to maintain relationships and care for their pets.

The provider took steps to supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Advocacy services were available to support communication, and leaders told us the activity coordinator works one-to-one with people to gather feedback and ensure their voices are heard. Leaders told us information can be provided verbally, in picture form and using an electronic device. However, we found the service was not fully compliant with the Accessible Information Standard, which requires that people’s information and communication needs are identified, recorded, and met in a way that is tailored to them. For example, one person’s care plan noted they had poor vision, yet the documented strategies were limited to repeated generic instructions such as ‘write clearly in big letters.’ The plan lacked a tailored, comprehensive approach to supporting the person’s specific communication needs. One relative told us, “Most of the staff are proactive and they will tell me what I need to know about [Name].” However, some relatives raised concerns about communication barriers, particularly for people who struggle to understand verbal information. One commented, “The home needs to work on communication and keeping up with what’s going on with [Name].”

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The provider has established multiple channels for gathering feedback, including satisfaction surveys, resident meetings chaired by the activity coordinator, and regular walkarounds. Leaders emphasised the importance of involving people and their relatives in care planning and encouraging participation in the day-to-day running of the home. However, relatives described mixed experiences in engagement. While some felt involved and listened to, others reported it was difficult to stay informed or raise concerns.Some relatives told us they have to initiate contact to get information. One relative said, “I feel like I am having to ask them a lot, it’s not offered to try and involve me.”

The provider did not always make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Initial assessments documented equality considerations and specific support requirements. However, there were some barriers to equitable access in practice. For example, despite 29 people living at the home at the time of the assessment, we observed the dining room only had available seating for 7 people, meaning some people had to eat in the lounge. A relative raised concerns about staffing capacity affecting access to meaningful activities, stating, “[Name] would like to be out of bed sometimes to go out in the garden, but they don’t offer that, and I think it’s sad because [Name] would like that but there are not enough staff.” Some staff also reported not always having enough time to review care plans in detail, which may impact timely and individualised support.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. While some people expressed confidence in receiving care and support when needed, others reported unmet needs and limited choices in how that support was delivered. This included restrictions around preferred methods of personal care, and limited options to choose meals in line with their preferences. Leaders have implemented electronic tablets and encouraged all staff, including kitchen and maintenance teams, to read care plans to better understand people’s preferences and needs. These systems demonstrated an intention to reduce disparities in outcomes by tailoring care to individual needs and promoting shared understanding among staff.

The provider did not always support people to plan for important life changes, so they had enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Within care plans we found while some planning had occurred, it was not comprehensive or person-centred and did not fully support people to make informed choices about their future care. There was no evidence that discussions had been offered or documented to explore people’s wishes, values, or preferences for future care. The absence of this information limits the ability of staff to deliver care that aligns with people’s individual priorities, particularly in the event of a health crisis or deterioration or a time when they may not be able to make decisions for themselves.