Archived: Fair View

The service Is owned

The person who lived at the service was well cared for. They were comfortable in their home and their privacy and dignity was respected by the people who cared for them. We spoke with a relative and a healthcare professional who were both positive about the care provided at the service.

Care was provided by a small, consistent, motivated staff team who had a good knowledge of people’s needs. The registered manager had attended recent first aid training. However, other areas of training had not been attended recently and needed updating. Skills for Care recommend areas such as fire and health and safety should be attended annually. Other areas such as safeguarding adults, infection control and moving and handling should be attended every three years. There was currently no moving and handling needs at the service. The registered manager explained that access to and the cost of attending such training was challenging. The staff appeared well informed and aware of changes to the legislation around the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and knew how to report any concerns they may have regarding any potential abuse.

Risk assessments were in place for a range of issues such as attending a day centre, spending time in the community, and personal care. People had access to a range of activities. They accessed the local community regularly. There had been no accidents or incidents which had taken place at the service. No medicines were being used at the service other than homely remedies such an occasional Paracetamol. Staffing levels met the present care needs of the person that lived at the service. The were plans in place for the emergency care provision of the person should the registered manager and staff be unable to provide care for any reason.

Where people did not have the capacity to make certain decisions, the service acted in accordance with legal requirements under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff had a good understanding of the principles of the legislation. The service was in the process of applying for an authorisation from the local authority for a potentially restrictive care plan.

Care plans were informative and contained details of people’s care needs and preferences. There was clear information about the person’s healthcare needs and records of when they attended appointments. The care plan provided guidance which helped ensure their care was individualised and responsive to their needs. Details of how the person which to be cared for were set out in a support plan which was presented in written and pictorial formats. This enabled them to read their own plan and be involved in any changes or updates.

There was a complaint’s policy in place. No complaints had been received by the service. The relative we spoke with confirmed they were very happy with the service provided and had never had any cause to raise a concern. The policy required updating with accurate contact numbers for the local authority. The registered manager assured us this would be addressed immediately. The person had been provided with advocacy support which provided them with the opportunity to raise any concerns.

The registered manager spoke regularly to the relatives and other professionals involved in the care of the person. This was to ask for any feedback on the service they provided and helped ensure it was meeting people’s needs. Relatives confirmed they were contacted should there be any change in the person’s needs.

Fair View was committed to meeting people’s individual needs. There were clear lines of responsibility and accountability within the service. One staff member told us; “We are here for the person, we do whatever they need.”

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Yes, we judged the service was safe.

The person who lived at the home indicated they were happy at the home, and nobody was unkind to them. We spoke to the person's social worker who said the person was settled and the registered provider met the person's needs.

The home provided satisfactory accommodation, was clean and maintained to a satisfactory standard.

Care is provided by the registered provider, with assistance from two adult family members. The staffing levels provided were satisfactory to meet the person's needs.

Care records kept were adequate, although more detail could be provided regarding medical appointments.

Is the service effective?

Yes, we judged the service was effective.

Individual care plans were in place. Care plans contained satisfactory information and were accessible.

There was suitable access to doctors, district nurses, chiropodists and opticians.

The person who lived at the home said they were happy with their care and the food provided.

The registered provider had adequate training. However training regarding fire safety, food handling and first aid needed to be updated. Similarly if family members provided more than occasional support there should be evidence they have received appropriate training and this is updated in line with health and safety law, and other government guidance.

Is the service caring?

Yes we judged the service was caring.

The person who used the service indicated they liked the registered provider, and nobody at the home was ever unkind to them. The person had lived at the home for many years, was settled there and regarded it as their home.

From discussion with the registered provider, it was clear they understood the person's needs well. We were told the registered provider did their best to ensure the person was well cared for, and promoted the person to have suitable opportunities and choices.

Some activities were provided for the person. For example they attended the local authority day centre between Monday and Friday. The registered provider told us various recreational activities were provided during the weekend such as going to the local town, going for walks, and visiting the local pub.

Is the service responsive?

Yes we judged the service was responsive.

The person who used the service indicated they were happy living at the home and they liked the registered provider.

From discussion with the registered provider, and from inspection of records we judged there were suitable links with local health services. Records showed there was appropriate contact with medical professionals.

Is the service well-led?

Yes we judged the service was well led.

The person who used the service indicated they were happy living at the home. From discussion with the registered provider we judged she understood the person's needs and met these appropriately. There were systems to monitor the person's care co-ordinated by the local authority.

Records, and policies and procedures were concise, but satisfactory considering the size and nature of the service.

The previous report listed a number of actions the home were required to achieve to improve the quality of care. We found these requirements had been complied with.

We found the person's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We saw the care plan had been signed by the person. This showed they had been involved in the review of the care plan.

We saw that the person who lived at Fair View experience a full program of activities and interests.

The accommodation and facilities were satisfactory for a home of this size.

We spoke with one relative, comments included, the registered manager/providers 'seem very kind' and 'X has a good relationship with them'.

We found people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

However, we did not see evidence to show how people's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care, and their privacy and dignity may not have always be respected.

We also found that people who used the service were not fully protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had not taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. It was not clear if, appropriate recruitment checks had been undertaken before staff began work.

People were not protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had not been followed and people were not cared for in a clean and hygienic environment.

The provider did not have an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service and others.