You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 1 December 2017

Fairholme is a care home in South Shields, providing care and support for up to 22 adults who have enduring mental health problems. The service consists of 17 individual rooms and four single flats. There were 20 people using the service at the time of our inspection.

The inspection took place on 23 October 2017 and was unannounced.

We previously inspected Fairholme in September 2016, at which time the service was in breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At the inspection of September 2016 we identified that the provider did not always have in place safe procedures regarding medicines and that bathrooms and communal areas were in need of refurbishment. At this inspection we found the provider had ensured all necessary action had been taken to ensure medicines administration was safe and that areas of necessary refurbishment had taken place. At our inspection of September 2016 we rated the service as requires improvement. Following this inspection we rated the service as good.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Premises had been improved, with two bathrooms refurbished, communal flooring recovered and people’s rooms decorated. The service was clean throughout. Maintenance of the building was well managed with a dedicated maintenance team covering this service and two of the provider’s other services.

People who used the service told us they felt safe and no relatives or professionals we spoke with raised concerns. Staff had been trained in safeguarding and were confident in how to identify potential abuse and how to report it.

There were sufficient staff on duty to keep people safe and meet their needs.

Pre-employment checks of staff were in place, including Disclosure and Barring Service checks, references and identity checks, to help ensure unsuitable people were not employed.

The ordering, storage, administration and disposal of medicines was safe, with improvements made in the recording of controlled drugs. Staff demonstrated a sound knowledge of people’s medicinal needs.

Risk assessments were in place to ensure staff knew how to protect people against the risks they faced, whilst also encouraging them to take some positive risks.

People had access to primary healthcare such as GPs, nurses and specialists, and got the support they needed. Staff liaised well with external professionals.

Training for staff was up to date and comprehensive, covering mandatory areas such as safeguarding, health and safety, moving and handling and fire safety, as well as areas specific to people’s developing needs, such as dementia awareness.

Staff received regular supervision and appraisal meetings and confirmed they were well supported and empowered.

People told us the new chef provided a range of high quality healthy meals. The chef planned a new cookery course for people to encourage more independence and we saw people who used the service interacted well with him.

The premises were well adapted. People used the varied lounges and calm spaces to suit their mood and the open kitchen/dining area was popular.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. One person who used the service was moving on to more independent living on the day of our inspection and the registered manager and deputy were keen for other people to achieve similar outcomes.

The atmosphere at the home was at times relaxed, at times vibrant, with people who used the service feeling at home. Peopl

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 1 December 2017

The service was safe.

Bathrooms and other communal areas had been appropriately refurbished, as had people�s bedrooms.

The storage, administration and disposal of medicines was safe. Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of people�s medicinal needs.

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people�s needs and staff had a good knowledge of the risks people faced, and how to help keep them safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 1 December 2017

The service was effective.

Training was well planned and managed. Staff were trained in a range of core topics as well as areas specific to meeting people�s individual needs.

People�s nutritional needs were well met by a chef who was passionate about people receiving high quality freshly prepared meals.

Staff liaised well with external healthcare professionals to ensure people�s needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 1 December 2017

The service was caring.

People who used the service and their relatives were consistent in their praise of dedicated, caring staff, with whom they had developed strong relationships.

People agreed the continuity of care provided by staff meant they felt themselves at home and in a welcoming environment.

Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of people�s needs, preferences, life histories and relationships.

Responsive

Good

Updated 1 December 2017

The service was responsive.

There were a range of group activities on offer and people were supported to pursue their own interests.

Activities were varied although there was a consensus from relatives we spoke with that more could be done to encourage people to improve their independence through social activities.

Complaints were managed in line with the provider�s policy and all people we spoke with were confident they could raise an issue and have it resolved appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 1 December 2017

The service was well-led.

The registered manager led the service well and was ably supported by a deputy. Corporate management support arrangements were in place and consistent, whilst appropriate delegation of duties on site took place.

Auditing was effective and ensured errors were identified and standards maintained.

Morale was high and the culture was one of focussing on helping people to become more independent.