You are here

Fourways Residential Home Inadequate

We are carrying out a review of quality at Fourways Residential Home. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 7 May 2020

About the service

Fourways Residential Home is a care home providing personal care to 16 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 20 people in one adapted building split over two floors.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People did not always receive their medicines as prescribed. Staff were not assessed as competent to administer medicines. Risks were not always assessed, monitored or managed safely and effectively. Accidents and incidents were not sufficiently recorded or investigated. People and health professionals did not always feel there was enough staff on duty. Records and observations confirmed this. There was not always evidence to show how lessons learned were shared and used to make improvements. Staff wore appropriate personal protective equipment. The home was free of malodour with a designated staff member cleaning the home. Staff recruitment checks were undertaken to ensure that they were suitable and safe to work with people made vulnerable by their circumstances. People told us they felt safe in the company of staff.

Staff were not in receipt of adequate training and support to meet people's needs. People's needs were not always identified through a robust assessment of needs and care plans lacked detail, which meant staff did not have access to clear information about how to support people safely and meet their needs. The decoration and some of the fabric of the building was in poor condition and some elements of the premises required action to be taken such as no hot water from the shower room tap and damp stained carpets. People were not always supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not always support them in a way which met the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Consent to care and treatment and best interest decisions had not always been obtained in line with legislation and guidance, such as the MCA.. The registered person was depriving people of their liberty without legal authority to do so. People were very positive about the food. People’s individual nutrition and hydration needs were being met.

People were not always supported to make decisions about their care. Some aspects of care delivery did not ensure people’s privacy was maintained and dignity upheld. People and relatives told us they felt staff were kind and caring. Staff were respectful and warm when they spoke about people. We observed kind and caring interactions. We have made a recommendation about privacy, dignity and respect.

People did not always receive individualised care which met their needs and preferences. For example, people had specific 'bath days' each week. People’s individual preferences on how they wished to spend their time had not always been explored and people felt they were not always met. People's care plans did not always contain sufficient information about the care and support they required. There were not always completed plans in place to support people at the end of their lives. Complaints had been dealt with appropriately. People and relatives knew how to complain and felt action would be taken by the management team.

There was no registered manager in post at the time of inspection. The provider failed to identify and manage risks appropriately and did not ensure a person-centred approach was in place. Audits were not sufficiently robust and the registered person failed to have effective oversight of the service. The provider did not always ensure Duty of candour. The provider conducted surveys to get feedback about the service. Residents meetings had recently been introduced for people to provide feedback. We saw evidence that staff worked in partnership with other professionals.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection (and update)

The last rating for this service was Requires Improvement (published 5 April 2019). The provider

Inspection areas



Updated 7 May 2020

The service was not safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 7 May 2020

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 7 May 2020

The service was not always caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 7 May 2020

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.



Updated 7 May 2020

The service was not well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.