• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Fairways

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Fullers Field, Swan Lane, Westerfield, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP6 9AX (01473) 214966

Provided and run by:
Cygnet Learning Disabilities Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

29 July 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on the 29 July 2015 and was unannounced.

Fairways Residential Home is registered to provide personalised care and accommodation for up to eight people with a learning disability.

There was a manager who had recently been appointed in April 2015. The manager told us they had recently submitted their application to register with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were supported to access a range of community activities. However, further work was needed to provide people with adequate social stimulation whilst within the service and explore other opportunities for improved social inclusion and activities which promoted their independence.

People’s needs were assessed and support plans gave guidance to staff on how people were to be supported. However, we were not assured that sufficient steps had been taken to adequately assess people’s nutritional and hydration needs. Support plans contained very little information about how staff should meet people’s needs in relation to their nutritional and hydration needs including providing them with sufficient amounts of food and drink. Staff had not received training in how to assess and monitor people at risk of malnutrition.

The manager and staff demonstrated a good knowledge of their roles and responsibilities with regards to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the steps to take to enable people’s best interest to be assessed if they lacked capacity to consent to their care and treatment.

Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of the needs of people and had been trained in a range of relevant subjects to support them to provide safe, effective and responsive care to people.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs. Staffing levels were flexible to provide for people’s changing needs and provide support for them with their social and leisure interests where one to one support was required.

The provider had systems in place to assess the quality and safety of the service. Where shortfalls were identified, the provider had produced action plans with timescales. This showed that the provider responded to protect people and ensure their health, welfare and safety needs were met.

We found breaches of regulations which related to the insufficient safe systems when recruiting staff and meeting people’s nutritional and hydration needs. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of this report.

22 April 2014

During a routine inspection

The people who used the service were unable to communicate easily verbally. To enable us to assess people's wellbeing we spent time sitting with them in the lounge and dining area observing the care they received and the level of staff interaction with people. We also spoke with three staff members. We looked at four people's care records. We also looked at other records including health and safety checks. During our inspection and the analysis of our inspection findings we considered the questions we always ask; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found;

Is the service safe?

We found that the service was safe. When we arrived our identification was checked and we were asked to sign the visitor's book. This showed that the staff took the security of the building and the safety of the people who lived there seriously.

We looked around the property which we found was clean, homely and free from unpleasant odours. It was well maintained and ensured that there was a safe environment for the people who used the service.

We saw records which showed that the health and safety checks were carried out in the service regularly and action was taken if equipment was found to be faulty or unsafe. This included regular visual checks and servicing of equipment such as hoists, the fire alarm panel and wheelchairs. Regular fire safety and legionella tests and checks were carried out, which showed that people were protected from unsafe or poorly maintained equipment.

We saw that the staff were provided with training in safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse, Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which was updated every year. This meant that staff were provided with the information that they needed to ensure that people were safeguarded.

Is the service effective?

People were unable to communicate verbally with us easily, but people showed us by expression and body language that they felt safe and relaxed. During our observations of the care and support staff gave to people we saw that the service was effective in meeting people's needs.

People's care records showed that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. The records were regularly reviewed and updated which meant that staff were provided with up to date information about how people's needs were to be met.

We saw that the service was effective in assessing people's nutritional needs and offered a good and varied menu, while ensuring that health and religious needs and preferences were taken into account.

Is the service caring?

We saw that the staff interacted with people who lived in the service in a caring, respectful and professional manner. People were unable to talk with us, but during the time we spent in the service we saw that people were comfortable, well dressed, looked smart and that staff were committed to caring for the people they supported.

The service provided meaningful activities and pastimes that were suited to people's personality, beliefs and interests. We saw people were supported to go out for a drive in the service's vehicle when they requested it, to participate in a favourite pastime and to uphold the requirements of their religion.

Is the service responsive?

We saw evidence that the service was flexible and made changes as required to ensure people were kept safe. For example, staffing levels were based on the assessed needs of the people. If necessary, because of unforeseen circumstances, staffing levels were increased to ensure people's needs were met. One person, who benefited from one to one staff support, received that support.

People's care records showed that where concerns about their wellbeing had been identified the staff had taken appropriate action to ensure that people were provided with the support they needed. This included seeking support and guidance from health care professionals, including the doctor, the speech and language team and the dietician.

We saw evidence that the service had responded quickly to address a mistake that had been made regarding one person's medication by the prescribing doctor.

The people who used the service, their relatives and other professionals involved with Fairways were given the opportunity to complete annual satisfaction questionnaires. The deputy manager said that the service responded to concerns raised with them.

We saw that people's choices were taken into account and listened to in all aspects of the way the service was run. People who used the service were provided with the opportunity to participate in activities which interested them. One person requested an evening outing which was quickly arranged. Another person, who had requested a different meal to what was offered, was given another alternative when they changed their mind.

Is the service well led?

Annual surveys were given to the people who used the service and their relatives.

The service had an effective quality assurance system in place and the records we examined showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. This ensured that the quality of the service was maintained.

The staff we spoke with told us that the manager was supportive, easy to approach and listened to what they had to say. The deputy manager also told us that they felt supported by the organisation and by their direct line manager. On the day of our inspection the manager was on annual leave. The deputy manager, who facilitated the inspection, had only been in post two weeks. When they informed their area office that our inspection was taking place within half an hour the manager from another of the organisation's services close by arrived to support the deputy manager.

11 November 2013

During a routine inspection

People who used the service communicated through basic makaton and symbols. We were not able to ask them about their experience of the care provided. However we spoke with an advocate who confirmed that the service provided excellent care to people who lived at the service.

We found that the service had appropriate arrangements in place for obtaining consent to care. There were mental capacity assessments in place for people in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

We saw that people experienced safe care based on detailed care plans that covered all aspects of health and social care needs. There were risk assessments in place that provided guidance to staff to minimise potential risks. We saw that a range of activities were provided that reflected both people's needs and choices.

People using the service were protected from abuse as they were supported by a staff team who had appropriate knowledge and training on safeguarding adults. People we spoke with told us if they had any concerns they would report them to the manager or senior person on duty.

People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff because there were robust recruitment procedures in place. Staff we spoke with confirmed that they were trained and supported during their probation period.

Staff received on-going training and supervision, which provided them with the skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the people they were supporting.

20 December 2012

During a routine inspection

The seven people living at the home were not able to communicate with us verbally. They were able to communicate by using facial gestures and body language. We saw that one person responded to the staff when approached with smiles and laughter, when staff spoke with them. This showed the person knew the staff and felt comfortable in their company.

We looked at the schedule of activities available which included horse riding, swimming and visiting a day centre. This meant that people had a choice of activities to pursue.

The care records we looked at were detailed and up to date and clearly identified people's care needs and how the staff would support each person.

10 November 2011

During a routine inspection

People living in the home were not able to communicate with us verbally. They shared their views through gestures, facial expressions and body language wherever possible.

We visited the home on 10th November 2011. We observed the care and support provided to people and the interaction they had with their care workers. This was friendly, caring, respectful and professional.

Care workers were attentive to the needs of people living in the home and they responded to non verbal communication requests for assistance promptly. People were provided with choices, such as the activities that they participated in and the food and drinks that they preferred. People and their clothing were clean, which showed that their personal needs were attended to and that their dignity was respected.