Fairholme House

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 that 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.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

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, or respect their privacy and dignity.

The registered manager had not been effective in identifying the areas of improvement around how people received their care. Staff told us some staff were not as gentle with people as others were. The registered manager told us they carried out general observation, however, did not record these interactions.

Although there were some positive interactions between staff and people observed during inspection, this standard of care was not consistently maintained. Staff practices did not always promote or uphold people’s dignity, privacy, autonomy, or choice.

People provided mostly positive feedback about staffing, we heard “Staff come to help wash and dress me. They're very good. I can't speak highly enough of them,” "I've noticed that the staff are kind to everyone." However, we also heard people felt staff were not always kind.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.

Care plans lacked sufficient detail to guide staff on people’s specific needs, wishes and preferences. This limited staff’s ability to deliver person-centred care.

People told us "I used to go to church. The church doesn't visit me here" and "We used to have a Vicar visit here; we haven't had one for months. I would like to see someone that I could talk to confidentially."

The registered manager had not collected peoples feedback about their care and had therefore not identified people's important individual aspects and preferences.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment, and wellbeing.

There was limited structure to support people and their needs around interaction and activity. There was only one activities coordinator. This staff member also had other roles within the home. When this member of staff was not available, there was no replacement to support people. People told us “The staff work well together as a team it's more difficult when the activities coordinator isn't here.”

People’s experiences of care were mixed, whilst some people told us care staff were kind and attentive, other people told us they were not always treated as individuals. Not all people were supported to access communal areas, instead they stayed in their bedrooms. There was no information about how to engage with people, their interests or how to ensure they had independence choice and control. This put people at risk of isolation.

The service had activities on in the home such as bingo, singers, and local primary school visits. We received positive feedback about these activities. People told us “I like the gardening and watering the flowers. I like to do arts and craft on Tuesdays the children come to see us. I enjoy the children coming we plant seeds together and we make bunting. We have a good time.”

We also heard not all people’s needs were considered, “I don't join in with the activities because I can't hear very well. Also, everybody here has got dementia so there is nobody for me to talk to,” and “There are no activities for us to do here.”
 

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Call bells were available in people’s bedrooms; however they were not always within reach. Some people were unable to use call bells independently due to physical or cognitive impairments. The registered manager had not assessed ways people could be supported to call for staff when required. This meant people were reliant on staff noticing them or waiting for routine checks.

We received mixed feedback from people about how staff responded to their needs. Some people told us staff were quick to react to their needs, “The staff came in immediately to help me, the following morning there was a knock at the door and the staff had come to see how I was. They're very kind.” We also heard “I would like to come out of my room, but I can't walk. I'm waiting for the staff to take me to the lounge, but I have to wait.”
 

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they did not feel valued at work. Staff received supervision however, these were inconsistent. Not all staff had received a supervision. Staff did not feel supervisions were helpful as the registered manager did not always follow up on their concerns.

Team meetings were in place, however there was limited action documented. Staff felt meetings were not effective as they did not support improvements raised by staff. Staff were not updated on action taken from the registered manager following the previous meetings, and did not always receive minutes from these meetings.