You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 March 2019

About the service: This service supported people with learning disabilities and/or autism.

The home was bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to seven people. Seven people were using the service at the time of the inspection. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by how the building was used. There were no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff did not wear anything which suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

What life is like for people using this service:

• A new manager had been appointed. The new manager advised us they were in the process of applying to become the registered manager for Fairfield House.

• People were at ease with staff, and enjoyed spending time with them.

• There had been changes in the staff caring for people. However, staff rotas had been arranged so people were always supported by staff who knew them well, as people started to develop caring relationships with new staff. There were sufficient staff to care for people at times to suite people.

• People were confident to ask for assistance and reassurance from staff when they wanted this.

• Staff promoted people’s rights to privacy and dignity and encouraged people’s independence.

• People made their own day to day choices and decisions. These included how people chose to spend their time, and what interesting things they wanted to do.

• Where people needed support to make some decisions staff and other health and social care professionals assisted them, focusing on what was best for people living at the home.

• Staff understood people’s preferred ways of communicating and supported them to develop their communication skills, further. This had led to people experiencing enhanced confidence when communicating.

• People were supported to stay as safe as possible by staff who understood risks to people’s safety.

• The risk of infections and accidental harm was reduced, as staff used their knowledge and the equipment provided to do this.

• People were supported to have their medicines safely and checks were undertaken to ensure these were administered as prescribed. People’s medicines were regularly reviewed.

• Staff had been supported to develop the skills they needed to care for people, so people’s care needs would be met.

• People had enough to eat and drink to remain well. People were encouraged to decide what they wanted to eat and were supported to choose from a healthy range of snacks.

• Staff supported people to see other health and social care professionals. This helped to ensure people experienced good health outcomes and a sense of well-being.

• People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this.

• People were supported to keep in touch with relatives and others who were important to them and had opportunities to do things which they enjoyed in the community. Staff encouraged people to try new experiences which they may enjoy.

• The views of people, relatives and other health and social care professionals were considered when people’s care was assessed, planned and reviewed. This helped to ensure people’s needs and preferences continued to be met.

• Systems were in place to take any learning from complaints, concerns or suggestions, to further improve people’s care.

• Staff worked with other health and social care professionals when considering the care people wanted at the end of their lives. The manager planned to further develop the processes to support people at the end of their lives, so their wishes would be responded to.

• Other health and social care professionals told us the manager had developed good links with other organisations who regularly

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 12 March 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our Safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 March 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our Effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 March 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our Caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 March 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our Responsive findings below.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 March 2019

The service was well-led.

Details are in our Well-led findings below.