Archived: Fairburn Chase

Updated 3 February 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 3 November 2015 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of four adult social care inspectors and a specialist advisor.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service. We also spoke with the continuing healthcare team and local authority. At the time of the inspection a Provider Information Return (PIR) was not available for this service. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. On this occasion we had not asked the provider complete this document.

We spent time in the lounge and dining room areas observing the care and support people received. We spoke with five people who were living in the home, a visiting relative and an external healthcare professional. We also spoke with the operations manager, the registered manager, clinical nurse manager, a nurse, three care staff, a member of the life skills team, a laundry assistant and a cook. We also spent some time looking at seven people’s care records, three staff recruitment and training files and a variety of documents which related to the management of the home.

Updated 3 February 2016

The inspection of Fairburn Chase took place on 3 November 2015 and was unannounced. We previously inspected the service on 17 March 2015 and, at that time we found the registered

provider was not meeting the regulations relating to management of medicines and supporting

staff. We asked the registered provider to make improvements. The registered provider sent us an action plan telling us what they were going to do to make sure they were meeting the regulations.

On this visit we checked to see if improvements had been made.

Fairburn Chase is a nursing home currently providing care for up to a maximum of 73 people over the age of 18. The home comprised of four units, Cygnet, Teal, Kingfisher and Athena, providing care and support for people with lifelong physical disabilities and acquired brain injuries. On the day of our inspection 43 people were being supported in three of the four units. Athena unit was currently empty, the registered manager explained the focus of this unit, when it opened, would be around enablement. This is about helping people become more independent and improve their quality of life. It focuses on helping individuals learn or relearn how to do everyday tasks for themselves rather than someone else doing the tasks for them.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

People told us they felt safe and staff we spoke with were able to describe various forms of abuse and the action they would take if they were concerned about a person’s safety.

Recruitment of staff was thorough however, staff we spoke with said staff sickness impacted upon staffing levels.

Medicines were stored and administered safely, however, we could not evidence that all staff who had a responsibility for administering people’s medicines had received relevant training.

Staff received induction and training when they commenced employment but refresher training for staff was not up to date. We saw evidence people received regular supervision.

Where people living at the home had their liberty restricted, for example, the use of coded door locks within the home, an authorisation was being obtained to ensure this was lawful and their rights were protected. Staff were able to tell us about the decisions people were able to make and where people may have needed extra support.

People were offered a choice of meals and drinks were available for people.

People told us staff were caring and kind. During the inspection we saw staff interacted with people in a friendly but appropriate manner.

The home employed life skills staff to support people to access a range of activities provided for people who lived at the home.

Care and support records were person centred and provided details which enabled staff to support people in line with the individual’s personal preferences. Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis.

Complaints and concerns were logged and responded to.

The home had an experienced registered manager and clinical nurse manager in position. There was a system in place to monitor the performance of the home and where shortfalls were identified, an action plan was implemented.

Staff, people who lived at the home and/or their representatives attended meetings and were provided with feedback forms to enable them to give their opinion about the quality of care and support people received.