You are here

Archived: Fairways Residential Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 12 October 2016

This inspection took place on 6 and 7 September 2016 and was unannounced. The previous inspection was carried out in September 2015 and concerns relating to the management of medicines, some areas of infection control, obtaining consent from people and quality management were identified. At that time and we asked the provider to send us an action plan about the changes they would make to improve the service. At this inspection we found that actions had been taken to implement these improvements. However, some areas required further improvements.

Fairways Residential Home is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 28 people .There were 23 people using the service during our inspection; who were living with a range of health and support needs.

Fairways is a large detached house situated in a residential area in Littlestone, close to the seafront. There were 25 bedrooms, three being able to offer double occupancy. People’s bedrooms were provided over two floors, with a passenger lift in-between. There were sitting and dining rooms on the ground floor and a quiet lounge on the first floor. There was an enclosed patio and garden area to the rear.

The service had a registered manager, who was present throughout the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Risks to people had generally been assessed and minimised but medicines had not always been recorded or stored appropriately. Clear, individual guidance was not available for ‘as required’ medicines.

A system to recruit new staff was in place. This was to make sure that the staff employed to support people were fit to do so. There were enough staff on duty, although at times, people were left with little to stimulate or occupy them. Planned activities were offered between 3-4pm.

Staff had completed induction training when they first started to work at the service. Staff were supported during their induction, monitored and assessed to check that they had attained the right skills and knowledge to be able to care for, support and meet people’s needs. There were staff meetings, so staff could discuss any issues and share new ideas with their colleagues, to improve people’s care and lives. Staff received supervisions but did not receive annual appraisals.

At time people were left with little to occupy or stimulate them. Regular activities were offered between 3-4pm each afternoon, at other times activities reflected staff availability rather than individual choice. Planned events took place such as trips out once a quarter, visiting entertainers twice a month and a summer fete.

People were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff had received safeguarding training. They were aware of how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns. Staff knew about whistle blowing and were confident they could raise any concerns with the provider or outside agencies if needed.

Equipment and the premises received regular checks and servicing in order to ensure it was safe. The registered manager monitored incidents and accidents to make sure the care provided was safe. Emergency plans were in place so if an emergency happened, like a fire, the staff knew what to do.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The registered manager and staff showed that they understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Some people at the service had been assessed as lacking mental capacity to make complex decisions about their care and welfare. At the time of the inspection the registered manager had applied for DoLS authorisations for people who w

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 12 October 2016

The service was not consistently safe.

People received their medicines when they should, but improvements were required in some storage, records and guidance to ensure risks in relation to medicine management were mitigated.

People were protected from the risks of avoidable harm and abuse. Staff knew how to recognise and respond to abuse and understood the processes and procedures in place to keep people safe.

There was sufficient staff on duty to meet peoples� needs. Appropriate checks were completed when employing new staff.


Requires improvement

Updated 12 October 2016

The service was not consistently effective.

Staff had one to one meeting to support them in their learning and development, however they did not have annual appraisals to aid development in their roles.

New staff received an induction and staff received training to enable them to support people effectively.

Staff understood the importance of gaining consent and giving people choice. Staff followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act and

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People�s health was monitored and staff ensured people had access to external healthcare professionals when they needed it. People were provided with a range of nutritious foods and drinks.



Updated 12 October 2016

The service was caring.

Staff took the time needed to communicate with people and included people in conversations. Staff spoke with people in a caring, dignified and compassionate way.

People were treated with kindness, respect and their dignity was protected.

Staff understood the importance of confidentiality. People�s records were stored securely to protect their confidentiality.


Requires improvement

Updated 12 October 2016

The service was not always responsive.

Activities were offered, however at times people sat with little to occupy or stimulate them.

Staff had a good understanding of people�s needs and preferences. People were relaxed in the company of each other and staff.

There was a complaints system and people knew how to complain. Views from people and their relatives were taken into account and acted on.


Requires improvement

Updated 12 October 2016

The service was not consistently well-led.

Quality assurance surveys, regular audits and checks were undertaken at the service to make sure it was safe and running effectively. Not all audits were effective in ensuring safe practice.

Policies and procedures were available, however, some referred to old legislation.

People and staff were positive about the leadership at the service. Staff told us that they felt supported by the registered manager and owner.