You are here

Archived: SeeAbility - Fairways Residential Home Outstanding

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


Inspection carried out on 9 July 2015

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 1 March 2014

During a routine inspection

The people who use the service had sensory impairments and learning disabilities. Some people also had autistic spectrum disorder and communication difficulties and so were not able to talk with us. Therefore we observed how the staff interacted with people using the service to determine if they were involving people in the decisions about their care and treatment. We spoke with people using the service who were able to communicate with us and asked them if they felt respected and involved in decisions about their care. People told us that the provider respected their wishes.

In the care plans and assessments we looked at we saw that people who use the service had been supported to make as many choices as possible about their personal care, choice of clothing and activities they wished to engage in. The staff used Makaton and easy read to ensure that people could understand their care plan and assessment as much as possible.

We found that records were maintained to a high standard and were stored safely. Care plans were reviewed every six months and formal reviews took place annually. Care plans included an assessment of the person's cognitive abilities, personal care needs, living skills and dietary requirements. Each person had a risk assessment on their care records that detailed risks in respect of specific tasks and activities.

We saw that there was a wide range of activities in place to meet the individual needs of each person using the service. Activities included music sessions, art and craft, baking, trips to the theatre and shopping. Staff told us that they maintained a flexible programme to meet the needs of people using the service. A staff member told us �We give people opportunities to take part in the things they enjoy doing but recognise that all of the people living here have their own likes and dislikes�.

The provider had an up to date adult safeguarding policy and procedure on file and it was accessible to all staff. The provider�s internal safeguarding policy had been reviewed and updated in January 2013. We spoke with a person who uses the service and they told us that they felt safe. The person told us �the staff are very kind and caring and I feel safe here�.

We walked around all of the rooms within the home including the laundry room, kitchen, lounge, dining area, conservatory and communal bathrooms. We found the property to be well maintained, clean and tidy and free from hazards.

We spoke with the staff on duty and looked at the staff training records. We saw that staff had attended a range of training courses needed to care for the people using the service. We also spoke to some of the people who use the service who told us that they felt that staff were adequately trained to care for them.

Inspection carried out on 25 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four people using this service and two members of staff as well as the registered manager. Two people using the service were able to answer our direct questions. To try to gain an understanding of the experiences of people, when we were unable to interpret their non verbal communication, we spent time observing the interactions between the staff and people using the service.

Two people told us they were happy in their home and the staff always treated them with respect. Our observations confirmed their views. The records demonstrated that people had been asked for their consent to the care they required.

People said they took part in choosing the menu and preparing their meals. The records confirmed that the staff had planned for the nutritional needs of each person.

We observed that the staff were caring and patient and took time to listen to people using the service. The staff had been trained to protect people from abuse. People told us they felt very safe and they could speak to the staff at any time. We observed that people freely moved around their home and approached staff whenever they required support or reassurance.

We observed that there were enough staff to assist people with their care and to support people to attend their chosen activities.

People told us they knew how to complain if they needed to do so. The records demonstrated that the staff had explained the complaints procedure to people during the regular reviews of their care.

Inspection carried out on 22 December 2011

During a routine inspection

During our visit, we spoke with three people who use the service. They all told us they liked the staff who they said were kind, patient and caring.

People told us that they could choose what to do and how to spend their day. They said the staff read the paper to them, they enjoyed painting and music and attending sensory sessions outside the home.

People told us about activities they did with the help of a volunteers who came to the home. The staff told us there were 20 volunteers who were highly valued by the staff and the people who use the service.

Two people told us they were worried about one new person who had moved to the home (See details in Outcome 13), but apart from that they enjoyed living at Fairways House.

Two people said they had lived at the service for many years and they thought the home was clean and tidy and the staff were �lovely�.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)