Fair Haven Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

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

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The registered manager promoted an open and transparent culture. They were approachable and encouraged staff to speak openly.

The registered manager responded to feedback and focused on improving the quality of care, keeping people at the centre of the service.

The provider encouraged learning and continuous improvement. Information was shared effectively through daily handovers, staff meetings and updates on the electronic care system. The registered manager held regular one-to-one and team meetings, giving staff the opportunity to raise concerns and share their ideas.

Relatives’ feedback reflected a positive and caring culture within the service. However, some felt that communication and engagement with families could be more consistent to further strengthen a shared approach.

The provider had good oversight of the service and worked closely with the registered manager and staff to promote a positive culture for people.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The registered manager understood their legal responsibilities and kept up to date with guidance.

The registered manager was visible and approachable. They understood their duty of candour responsibilities and maintained oversight of the service through regular audits and improvement plans. The registered manager was experienced and knowledgeable and showed a strong commitment to providing a welcoming and supportive home.

People and staff spoke positively about the leadership team. They told us the management team was approachable, supportive, responsive and visible in their day-to-day work. Relatives’ feedback reflected a caring and approachable leadership team.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

People and their relatives had opportunities to share their views, for example during care reviews and meetings. Staff were able to speak up through supervision sessions and staff meetings. They understood safeguarding and whistleblowing and knew how to raise concerns, including anonymously if they wished. The registered manager had an open-door policy and encouraged feedback. Staff also told us they could access a confidential employee assistance helpline at any time.

Relatives told us they felt able to speak up and raise any concerns with staff or the manager. They described staff as approachable and responsive when issues were raised. One relative told us, “I have a number that I can call and speak to if I need to,” which showed people felt confident their voices would be heard.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff told us they felt respected and treated fairly, regardless of their role or background.

Flexible working arrangements were available where needed, showing the provider made reasonable adjustments to support staff. The staff team was diverse, with people from different backgrounds bringing a range of skills and experience. Staff spoke positively about the working environment, training and support they received. They felt they had equal opportunities to develop and progress in their careers. Staff and leaders had received training in equality and diversity, helping to prevent discrimination and promote a respectful workplace.

Relatives described staff as respectful, kind and welcoming, reflecting an inclusive and supportive culture within the workforce. One relative told us, “The staff are polite and make us feel welcome,” which demonstrated a positive and respectful approach to equality and diversity.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider had systems in place to oversee the quality and safety of the service. They visited the home regularly to carry out checks, speak with people and staff, and review how the service was running. Findings from these visits were shared with the registered manager.

A range of audits were completed, including areas such as medicines, infection control and the environment. These helped to identify any issues, and we saw that actions were taken to address them. The registered manager used these systems to monitor the service and drive improvement.

The provider and registered manager showed a commitment to continuous improvement. Feedback from people, relatives and staff was used to make changes, and learning from incidents or concerns was shared within the team.

Relatives were generally positive about the care provided and described staff as supportive and approachable, reflecting a well-managed service. One relative told us, “I am very happy with the care and I have no concerns.” However, some feedback indicated that communication and engagement with families could be further strengthened to support continuous improvement.

There were plans in place to deal with emergencies. The provider had an up-to-date business contingency plan, which included arrangements for evacuation and continuity of care. This was reviewed regularly to ensure it remained effective.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The provider worked in partnership with the local community and other services to support people’s wellbeing.

We saw evidence of a range of professionals involved in people’s care, including GPs, dietitians, district nurses and social workers. This helped ensure people received timely and appropriate support from the right professionals. Staff maintained good communication with external services and made referrals promptly when people’s needs changed. This supported joined-up care and helped achieve positive outcomes for people.

Where possible, people were encouraged to stay connected with the local community, for example through outings such as visits to parks or shops. This supported people’s social wellbeing and helped reduce isolation.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The service had a clear focus on learning and making improvements. Systems were in place to review incidents, audits and feedback, and use this information to improve how the service was run. The registered manager took steps to stay informed and up to date. They attended local authority forums, internal managers’ meetings and were part of a local registered managers’ network. This helped them share ideas, learn from others and stay aware of current issues in the sector.

There was an open approach to learning within the staff team. Staff told us they felt involved and able to contribute to improvements. Learning from incidents and day-to-day practice was shared with the team, helping to improve the quality of care.

The registered manager responded quickly to feedback and concerns. Actions were taken without delay to reduce risks and make improvements.