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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We observed warm, caring interactions between staff and people. Staff spoke to people kindly, took time to listen and responded patiently. One person told us, “They [staff] are very kind and nice to me.”

A relative told us, “The way they [staff] are with [person], just so kind. It’s just the way [staff] touch [person] when they are with [person], they have just a nice nature and they are talking personally to them. Some people have different needs, and [staff] seem to be able to adapt to different needs.” Another relative told us, “I hear one of the carers singing and dancing, holding [person’s] hand and treating [person] as their mother. The way they speak to [person], look [person] in the eye and give [person] time. I can’t praise the carers enough; such lovely people. The carers have the utmost respect for [person].”

People told us staff respected their privacy and dignity when providing personal care. One person said, “They are very good when I am showering, they use towels to cover me up.”

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of interactions between staff and people. This included observations of care practice and dignity spot checks undertaken by senior staff. These reviews helped provide oversight of how people were treated and supported staff to deliver care in a respectful and person-centred way.

The provider did not always ensure people were supported to pursue their interests, aspirations and social connections in a way that reflected what was important to them.

Whilst staff knew people well and care records contained personalised information about people's preferences; this was not always translated into meaningful opportunities and outcomes for people.

People were not consistently supported to pursue their hobbies faith and social relationships in ways which mattered to them. The provider had contacted the local parish and explored opportunities to support people's spiritual needs following changes to local church services. However, further opportunities to enable people to attend church had not been fully explored, despite some people expressing a wish to do so. One person told us, “If there was a church service I would go.”

People were not always supported to access community opportunities which reflected their interests and preferences. One person said, “I go along to whatever is happening, singing, quizzes and things like that, but I would like to get out more if I could.”

Staff told us activity provision was sometimes affected by staffing pressures, and opportunities for engagement with the wider community were limited.

Care plans included person-centred information about people's likes, dislikes, preferred foods, interests and daily routines.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were supported to maintain their independence and make choices about their daily lives. People told us staff respected their preferences and accommodated their choices wherever possible. One person said, “I have washes and a shower. If I ask for a shower they will fit me in if possible.” Further comments included, “You can have what you want for breakfast, everybody is so friendly. I never hear anyone having any arguments. I am very happy here” and “I can choose when I get up and go to bed. I have been asked if I want a woman or a man carer, I have just women carers. I am asked where I want to eat.”

Relatives told us staff encouraged independence whilst providing support where needed. One relative said, “They encourage people who can, to be independent. When someone is walking, they stand behind to support them” and “Carers give [people] choices, like would you like this or that. [Person] loves fruit, so they serve it quite often and [person] loves it. The carers seem to adapt to personal preferences.”

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the importance of promoting independence. Staff described encouraging people to use mobility aids where appropriate to maintain their mobility and independence. We also heard how people's individual routines and preferences were respected, including supporting people who preferred to get up early and respecting the wishes of people who chose to remain in bed or decline care.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff responded promptly to changes in people's health. For example, a suspected urinary tract infection was escalated to a GP, and treatment was commenced without delay. One person told us how staff responded appropriately when they needed support, they said, “[Staff] do get the doctor in if you are not well, they don't just leave you.”

Staff understood how to respond to emergencies and were able to describe the actions they would take to keep people safe. This included assessing people for injury, seeking assistance, using appropriate equipment where safe to do so, and contacting emergency services or healthcare professionals when required. However, whilst staff were able to explain how they responded to people's needs, records did not always clearly document the actions taken or the rationale for decisions made.

People gave mixed feedback about response times when requesting assistance. One person said, “I have to wait a long time sometimes. It is worrying if I need the toilet”, another person told us, “It's not often that I use my bell, but when I do, they do come along quite quickly. Only once have I had to complain about it.”

The provider did not always act on information provided by staff to promote the wellbeing of their staff.

The provider had systems in place to support staff, such as one-to-one meetings, team meetings and opportunities for feedback in daily handover meetings.

The provider did not act on opportunities to further strengthen staff engagement and ensure all staff felt able to contribute to service improvement. The provider sought feedback from staff through surveys. Responses showed some staff did not always feel supported, listened to or valued by management. The provider had not taken any action to address these concerns.

Supervision records did not always demonstrate staff wellbeing had been discussed, which limited the provider's oversight of the support staff may require in their roles. However, staff told us supervisions took place regularly and were helpful in identifying training and development needs. One member of staff said, “Very useful, always asked what training I need.”