Fairland 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 did not look at this key question. At this assessment the rating was Good: This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (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.

Staff were observed to be open and friendly and maintained good relationships with people and their friends and family. We did not observe people’s dignity being compromised and observed staff giving clear instruction when supporting people with their mobility or assistance with meals.

Staff were relaxed and most relatives told us that staff engaged well with them and kept them informed. A newsletter and activity schedule helped people stay involved.

Several complaints have been raised about the service which were being addressed and included people not feeling that their independence was fully promoted, examples given were people not being able to administer their own medicines or control their own heating. Another person told us that items going missing was a concern and people accessing their room uninvited.

The provider mostly treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Whilst staff spent time getting to know people, gaps in their initial assessments and the care planning and review process put people at increased risk of not having their needs fully met. This was particularly true when agency staff were a common feature of the home. Staff told us people’s preferences were respected, and we observed people being supported in a relaxed, flexible way with no fixed time for breakfast. The dining room was well attended at lunch time, but the manager had recognised that some people found large groups of people difficult. They intended to create a more bespoke dining room experience for those who would benefit and was also creating a more personalised menu. Social activities were being developed in line with people’s preferences and were well advertised. We found however people with sensory or significant cognitive decline might struggle to join in larger group activities and more bespoke activities should be developed.

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

People had choices over their routines, and any deprivation of liberty was clearly documented. Restrictions were minimal and information was around the service to promote people’s choice and share information. We could not see that people were supported to contribute to their care plan review. However, people did have opportunities to attend resident meetings and received newsletters. The manager and deputy were proactive in supporting people and conducted walkarounds and made themselves available to relatives, people using the service and staff to chat.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

The provider was improving how it cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

In recent months training statistics had improved although most staff referred to online training as the main source of training delivery. Feedback about supervision and support was mixed, as staff told us and records showed supervision and appraisal records had not been completed regularly and staff had not always received consistent top-down support.

However, staff felt there was an improving picture with more consistent management support across the day and out of hours, more staff and regular staff meetings where staff felt they could give feedback and have their ideas responded too. A wider whole home survey had not been carried out to formally seek the views of people using the service, relatives, staff and health care professionals which would help identify where the service was on their improvement journey.