Archived: Fairburn Chase

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, and the staff supporting them as well as from looking at records.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. Staff told us they understood safeguarding policies and would report any concerns they had about people's care and treatment.

The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and in how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them or their relatives. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. Where people required additional support from health professionals referrals had been made and any instructions had been followed.

People's needs were taken into account with the layout of the service enabling people to move around freely and safely. Some areas had been sensitively adapted to meet the needs of people with physical impairment.

Staff completed induction training before they provided support to people who lived at the service. Where staff required refresher training this had been identified by the management team and a plan was in place to bring staff training up to date. However, staff told us they had not had dementia awareness training.

Is the service caring?

We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. One person commented, 'Staff are kind; every single one of them.'

Although people's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had not always been recorded their care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Staff engaged well with people when they were offering support and changed their approach to meet the needs of the individuals they were supporting.

Is the service responsive?

People received support in accordance with their known preferences and only where they had given valid consent.

People were involved in a range of activities. The provider explained a reduction in activity and life skills staff was temporary and additional staff were being recruited at the time of our visit.

The provider required any complaints to be analysed and reported to ensure an appropriate response. People told us they were confident they could raise any concerns and these would be addressed.

Care records were not always updated. It was sometimes difficult to identify the most recent or relevant information about people's current care needs. Care records were not stored securely. This meant there was a risk they could be accessed inappropriately.

Is the service well-led?

At the time of our visit the manager had recently registered with the Care Quality Commission. Prior to our visit we had noted the manager had not registered for one of the regulated activities registered at the service. The operations manager told us the provider was in the process of deregistering the regulated activity as it was not provided at the service.

The provider was supporting the manager and team to develop the service and drive improvement. There was a quality assurance system in place that involved people at the service and the provider's quality team.

People told us they felt able to raise any concerns with the management team.

On 10 February 2014 we served a fixed penalty notice to Fairburn Chase Health Care Limited for failing to have a registered manager in place at Fairburn Chase. A fine of '4,000 was paid. A manager application has been received and is currently being assessed.

This inspection was carried out to check compliance actions had been met following our inspection in October 2013. During the inspection we spent time on all three units in the home. We spoke with seven people who were staying in the home, five relatives, eight staff, one visiting healthcare professional and the registered manager. We looked at five people's care records.

People were treated with respect and their privacy and dignity maintained. One person said: 'They always knock even if my door is open'. Social activities had improved. One person described the staff as 'brilliant' and said: 'They get me motivated and encourage me to be independent.'

People were receiving the care and treatment they required. One person said: 'The care's fantastic.' Another person told us: 'I'm very happy here and have no worries as everything is taken care of. Staff are always trying to look at ways in which they can make things better for me.' A further person said: 'The carers are quite good. They do what you ask.'

People were provided with sufficient food and drink. One person said: 'The food is brilliant. I get what I ask for and I'm offered alternatives.'

There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs.

There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of service people received.

During the inspection we spoke with seven people who used the service, five relatives, nine staff and the home manager. We reviewed eight people's care records and spent time on all three units in the home.

We found inconsistencies in how people's privacy, dignity and choices were respected and upheld. We saw some people were actively supported by staff and participated in activities of their choice. However, we saw other occasions where staff lacked empathy with people and carried out care tasks with little interaction.

We found variations in the quality of people's care and welfare and shortfalls in the care documentation, which put people at risk of unsafe or inappropriate care.

We found although people were provided with a choice of meals and drinks, people's nutritional needs were not consistently met.

We found there were effective recruitment and selection processes in place.

From our observations, feedback from staff, relatives and people who used the service, we found there were not always enough staff to meet people's needs.

We found there were not effective systems in place to monitor the quality of service people received.