Fair Haven Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

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

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The provider worked with people and their relatives to understand their preferences, backgrounds and needs. This helped staff provide personalised care.

Staff worked closely with people and their families to respond quickly to any changes in needs. Care plans were detailed and reflected people’s preferences, cultural needs and daily routines.

Relatives’ feedback indicated that care was generally personalised, with staff understanding people’s needs, preferences and routines.

The service supported person-centred care by respecting individual choices and promoting independence. For example, one person asked for a kitchenette in their room to help them live more independently. After a risk assessment, the manager arranged this, and the person was very happy with the outcome. A relative told us, “Yes (Relative) is safe, the people around (Relative) know what they are doing.”

Staff told us they had clear information to support people. One staff member said, “All the information I need is in the care plans and risk assessments. If anything changes, we are told during handover.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The registered manager worked closely with external professionals, including GPs, district nurses and the local authority, to make sure care was well coordinated. Staff understood the importance of following professional advice and used this to support people’s health and wellbeing.

Relatives’ feedback was generally positive about the care provided; however, some indicated that communication could be improved, particularly in keeping them informed about changes in people’s needs.

The service promoted continuity of care by having a stable staff team. The registered manager told us agency staff had not been used for a long time. This meant people received consistent care from staff who knew them well and understood their needs.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider shared clear and up-to-date information in ways people could understand. Staff knew people’s communication needs well and adapted how they spoke and supported them so everyone could be involved.

For example, one person who spoke only Polish was supported by staff who could speak Polish. The service also used simple translated words and pictorial booklets to help communication with other staff. This helped the person understand information and express their needs.

People’s communication needs were clearly recorded in their care plans, with guidance for staff on how best to support them.

People had access to mobile phones and tablets to stay in touch with family and friends. Staff had received data protection training and were careful not to discuss personal information in shared areas.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service listened to people and involved them in decisions about their care and daily lives. Families were invited to take part in annual care plan review meetings.
For example, two people wanted to use the laundry independently. The manager listened to them, carried out a risk assessment, and put simple instructions in place. This supported them to use the laundry safely while maintaining their independence.
Relatives told us they were involved in creating care plans. One relative told us, “They do and they do all of (Relative) medication and (Relative) has now been able to take control of their own medication.”

Relatives’ feedback was generally positive; however, some felt there could be more consistent opportunities to share their views and contribute to service improvements.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

During this assessment we did not identify any concerns about people’s ability to access the service. The registered manager and staff understood the importance of equal access to care and worked to remove barriers.

Reasonable adjustments were made to support people to access healthcare and other services in a way that suited their needs. This helped prevent delays and ensured people were treated fairly.

The environment supported accessibility. The home had clear signage, and all areas, including the garden, were wheelchair accessible. This helped people move around safely and maintain their independence.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.
Staff had received training in equality, diversity and human rights. People told us they were treated fairly and with respect and did not feel discriminated against.
Staff understood the importance of treating people as individuals. One staff member said, “We treat everyone as individuals here.”
Care plans included what was important to each person, such as their relationships, interests, cultural background and spiritual needs. This helped make sure people received fair and personalised care.
Activities were adapted so everyone could take part, including people with mobility needs or cognitive impairment. This helped ensure people had equal opportunities to stay involved and engaged. However, relatives’ feedback suggested that opportunities to further personalise care and activities could be developed to ensure more consistent experiences and outcomes for everyone. Staff understood how to recognise and challenge discrimination and said they would report any concerns.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The provider encouraged individuals to share their end-of-life wishes and viewed this as a positive contribution to people’s care planning. Care plans were detailed and respectful of peoples wishes.

Important information was included such as who to contact, whether the person wished to be admitted to hospital and if the person wanted medical intervention. This ensured staff respected the person’s end of life wishes.

At the time of our assessment no one was receiving end-of-life care.