You are here

Archived: SeeAbility - Fairways Residential Home Outstanding

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 10 September 2015

We inspected SeeAbility - Fairways Residential Home on 9 July 2015. This was an unannounced inspection.

The home provides accommodation and support for up to seven adults with sight loss and multiple disabilities. At the time of the inspection there were seven people living in the home with varying degrees of visual impairment, moderate to severe learning disabilities and hearing difficulties. Some people had very limited verbal communication skills and they required staff support with their personal care and to go into the community.

The service had a registered manager. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We were only able to have limited discussions with some people living in the home because of their language difficulties. We relied on our observations of care and our conversations with people’s relatives and staff to understand their experiences.

There was a positive atmosphere within the home and staff put people at the heart of the service. People and their relatives were encouraged to be involved in the planning of care. Staff were highly motivated and flexible which ensured people’s plans were realised so that they had meaningful and enjoyable lives.

Staff had a positive approach to keeping people safe. Staff showed commitment to managing the changing risks in the service and had quickly developed their skills and understanding to support people when they became distressed or anxious. There was enough staff to keep people safe and support people to do the things they liked. People’s safety risks were identified, managed and reviewed and the staff understood how to keep people safe. Systems were in place to protect people from the risks associated from medicines.

The registered manager and provider regularly assessed and monitored the quality of care to ensure national and local standards were met and maintained. Continual improvements to care provision were made which showed the registered manager and provider were committed to delivering high quality care. We saw some outstanding examples of how the registered manager routinely implemented good practice guidance, local and national initiatives to improve the home.

All of the staff received regular training that provided them with the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs in an effective and individualised manner.

People’s health and wellbeing needs were closely monitored and the staff worked well with other professionals to ensure these needs were met. The provider employed their own central team of rehabilitation officers for the visually impaired, speech and language therapy and assistive technology staff. The registered manager ensured this team reviewed all people in the home when needed and staff implemented professional’s guidelines appropriately.

The work done by the home to respond to people’s needs while finding creative ways to develop people’s skills and independence was outstanding. We heard many examples of how people had been supported to develop their communication skills, self-care abilities and have increased enjoyment in the community. Staff spent significant time with people and their previous support providers before they moved into the home. This enabled staff to get to know people who found it difficult to communicate their needs and preferences so that their care and staffing needs could be determined before they moved. A relative told us this had made the transition easier for people.

A flexible approach to mealtimes was used to ensure people could access suitable amounts of food and drink that met their individual preferences. This helped people to maintain healthy weights.

Staff sought people’s consent before they provided care and support. However, some people were unable to make certain decisions about their care. In these circumstances the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were being followed. Where people had restrictions placed upon them to keep them safe, the staff ensured people’s rights to receive care that met their needs and preferences were protected. Where people were legally restricted to promote their safety, the staff continued to ensure people’s care preferences were respected and met in the least restrictive way.

People and their relatives were involved in the assessment and review of their care. Staff supported and encouraged people to access the community and participate in activities that were important to them.

Feedback was sought and used to improve the care. People knew how to make a complaint and complaints were managed in accordance with the provider’s complaints policy.

The culture of the home was positive, people were treated with kindness, compassion and respect and staff promoted people’s independence and right to privacy. The staff were highly committed and provided people with positive care experiences. They ensured people’s care preferences were met and gave people opportunities to try new experiences.

Inspection areas



Updated 10 September 2015

The service was safe.

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

Risks were identified and managed in ways that enabled people to lead fulfilling lives and remain safe. Staff supported people when they became distressed or anxious with a positive and calm approach.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably trained staff to keep people safe and meet each person’s individual needs.



Updated 10 September 2015

The service was effective.

People with multiple disabilities were supported to live their lives in ways that enabled them to stay healthy and lead an improved quality of life.

People received effective care from staff who were trained in providing service specific care to meet people’s individual needs.

The provider acted in line with current legislation and guidance where people lacked the mental capacity to consent to aspects of their care or treatment.



Updated 10 September 2015

The service was caring.

People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. People and a relative said staff were very caring and considerate.

People had complex communication needs associated with their disabilities. Staff used a range of communication methods appropriate to each person’s needs to understand people’s preferences.

People were supported to maintain family relationships and to avoid social isolation.



Updated 10 September 2015

The service was responsive.

Creative, tailor made techniques were used to support people with communication difficulties to express their views, concerns and take part in planning their care. People consistently lead their lives the way they wanted to. Time was taken to get to know people, where appropriate, before they moved into the home.

Each person had a key worker with particular responsibility for ensuring the person’s needs and preferences were understood and acted on. People had a choice about their daily routines and activities were flexibly supported so that people had control over the way they chose to spend their time.

People, relatives and staff were encouraged to express their views and the service responded appropriately to feedback.



Updated 10 September 2015

The service was very well led.

People were supported by a highly motivated staff team. There was a nurturing atmosphere and people were at the heart of the service. High quality care and support was consistently provided. This was because effective systems were in place that regularly assessed, monitored and improved the quality of care.

The registered manager and provider demonstrated that they continuously developed their practice and improved the quality of care for people by following national guidance when supporting people with sight loss and communication difficulties.