Fair Haven Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People and their relatives told us they were involved in planning and reviewing care. This helped ensure support was tailored to each person.

People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home. Pre-admission assessments were completed to confirm the service could meet their needs and to gather information for care planning. We reviewed care records for two people and found the information in their care plans and risk assessments matched the initial assessments. Relatives felt that staff generally understood people’s needs and provided appropriate care.

The provider also considered people’s individual communication needs. For example, people whose first language was Polish were supported by staff who could speak Polish. This helped them express their needs and be involved in their care.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider used recognised assessment tools to review people’s needs, including the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) and the Waterlow tool for assessing the risk of pressure ulcers. These were completed as part of people’s care assessments.

Care plans were based on individual needs and informed by input from healthcare professionals such as GPs, nurses and dietitians. Records showed that actions were taken in a timely way and followed professional advice. For example, when people were losing weight, referrals were made to a dietitian, and food and fluid charts were put in place to monitor intake.

We observed a positive mealtime experience. Staff provided support where needed to ensure people could eat comfortably and safely.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The provider worked closely with a range of healthcare professionals, including GPs, district nurses and phlebotomists, to ensure people received joined-up care.

Handover records were detailed and well structured, which supported continuity of care and reduced the risk of important information being missed.

Staff told us communication within the home was good. Information about people’s needs was shared promptly with team members and external professionals when required. Staff also said they felt supported and described positive team well-being, including support from manager.

Relatives described positive experiences of staff working together to support people and sharing updates when needed. A relative told us, “I find them all very caring and accommodating.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported to see healthcare professionals when needed. They told us staff helped them stay well and respected their choices. Records showed good communication with GPs, community nurses and other services, so any health concerns were picked up early.

People’s food and drink needs were assessed. Meals were fresh, balanced and based on people’s preferences and dietary needs. Kitchen staff asked people what they wanted and tried to offer alternatives if someone did not like the main meal. One staff member said, “We ask people what they want on the menu. If they want something different, we try to provide it.”

A relative told us, “The food is lovely, I have eaten there.”

Staff supported people to stay active. Activities were available, including light exercise. The registered manager told us people were encouraged to go for walks, visit the park or go shopping, especially when the weather was good.

Records showed people were supported to see their GP, attend health reviews and have regular wellbeing checks.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People’s health and wellbeing were reviewed regularly. Staff understood people’s needs, noticed any changes, and recorded them clearly. They worked with health and social care professionals when needed.

Vital signs and weight were checked regularly. Any concerns were acted on quickly, and referrals were made where required.

We saw positive outcomes for people. For example, one person had been losing weight, stayed in bed most of the time, and was not mobile before moving to the home. With support and encouragement from staff, the person had gained weight and their mobility had improved.

The registered manager and staff understood the importance of involving people in their care to help achieve better outcomes.

The provider usually respected people’s rights and gained consent when providing care, but this was not always consistent. While staff understood the importance of consent and people felt respected, some decisions were not always supported by clear assessments or records.

People told us staff always asked for consent before providing care. One person said staff were very kind and respectful.

Staff had received training on the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and understood the importance of gaining consent. During our visit, we saw staff explaining things in a way people could understand and giving them time to make decisions and saw staff knocked on doors before entering their rooms.

Processes to gain consent and apply the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were in place, but these were not always consistent. We saw good examples of MCA assessments and best interest decisions for some people. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were being made and tracked appropriately. However, we found that some decisions, such as information sharing, use of locked doors, close supervision, and the use of equipment like sensor mats, did not always have a recorded capacity assessment. We discussed this with the registered manager, who told us they would address these gaps.