The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Fairlight Manor

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

48 Fairlight Avenue, Telscombe Cliffs, Peacehaven, East Sussex, BN10 7BS (01273) 582786

Provided and run by:
Fairlight Manor Limited

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of assessment 16 September 2025 to 7 October 2025. Fairlight Manor provides personal care and support for up to 19 older people, most of whom were living with dementia. At the time of our visit there were 17 people living at the home. This assessment was prompted by the length of time since our last inspection.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance. The service had made improvements and are no longer in breach of regulations.

The home was clean and tidy throughout. Environmental risks were identified and mitigated. People were protected from the risk of abuse, harm or discrimination. Staff knew people well and understood the care and support required and their medicines were managed safely. There were enough staff who had been safely recruited and received ongoing training and support. Staff ensured they received support from appropriate health and social care professionals when they needed it. People were treated with kindness and compassion. They were supported to make their own decision and choices. Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity and helped maintain their independence. People had choice in their care and were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends. There were activities available throughout the day, and people were supported to maintain their own interests and hobbies. Staff responded to people in a timely way. Staff wellbeing was supported and there was a positive culture at the service. The provider had good oversight of the service. They were committed to learning, improving and developing the service for the benefit of the people who lived there.

17 April 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Fairlight Manor is a care home providing personal care to up to 19 people. The service provides support to older people, people living with dementia and other mental health conditions. At the time of our inspection there were 16 people using the service. Fairlight Manor accommodates people across two floors, each of which has separate adapted facilities.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Some people were not always kept safe. There were hazards with the environment that were not mitigated. There were stair gates in other areas of the service, however the first floor had a stair gate missing at the top of a staircase. This meant people’s safety was compromised living on that floor were at risk of falling should they have attempted to use the stairs if they were unsupervised or if they were not able to use the lift. This was addressed on the day of inspection.

Risk assessments were not always robust. Staff were not provided with full guidance with how to support people with different health needs and how to respond if health needs changed.

Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the service people received. However, they had not identified the shortfalls we found at this inspection with regards to risk assessments for people and the environment.

The registered manager did not notify the CQC of incidents in a timely fashion in accordance with their regulatory responsibilities.

Staff understood how to protect people from poor practice and abuse. People told us they felt safe at Fairlight Manor. We observed people to be relaxed in the company of staff. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse.

People and their relatives told us they were happy with staffing levels. Staff were recruited safely and were suitable skilled and trained to support people.

Relatives told us they were confident in the care provided to people. People were supported to have choice and control of their day to day lives. Records showed that if people needed other healthcare needs, these were arranged using external healthcare professionals.

Staff supported people in the least restrictive way and in their best interests. Staff, people and relatives were supported to engage with the service. People and relatives told us the management team were approachable and accessible. Staff told us they felt well supported, empowered to develop and that Fairlight had a positive culture to work within.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 14 December 2017).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the service has changed from good to requires improvement based on the findings of this inspection.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Fairlight Manor on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Enforcement

We have identified breaches in relation risk assessments, safety and management, and governance at this inspection.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

15 December 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Fairlight Manor provides accommodation and support for up to 19 older people. At the time of inspection, there were 19 people living at the home.

We found the following examples of good practice.

There had been an outbreak of COVID-19 at the home and people had previously been supported to isolate in their bedroom. At the time of our inspection, the home had finished its isolation period and was no longer closed to visitors.

The registered manager told us that during the outbreak some people were unable to understand the need for self-isolation due to living with dementia. A designated space in a communal area was allocated to these people in order to support safe movement around the home without restricting people.

The registered manager had designated the ‘celebration room’, an annexe in the garden for people to receive visitors. Inside the room, chairs had been arranged with tape on the floor marking a two metre distance. Visits to the home were pre-booked. Visitors had their temperatures taken on arrival and were asked to wear face masks during the visit.

The provider had been making renovations around the home before and during the pandemic. These changes to the environment focused on improving infection control around the home. For example, people’s bedrooms had hard flooring and blinds that could be easily wiped clean.

Staff were wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) in line with government guidance. PPE was stored in each person’s bedroom and there were pedal bins in people’s rooms to dispose of PPE safely.

2 November 2017

During a routine inspection

Fairlight Manor provides accommodation and support for up to 19 older people living with a dementia type illness. Some people are independent and require little assistance, while others require assistance with personal care, daily living and moving around the home. There were 16 people living at the home during the inspection.

The home is a converted older building, bedrooms are on three floors, and there was a lift to enable people to access all parts of the home and a secure garden to the rear of the building. The registered manager is part owner of the home. The registered manager was not present during the

inspection, we were able to speak with them on the telephone during the inspection and after to discuss our findings and to clarify a few areas.

At the last inspection in July 2015, the service was rated Good. We found no breaches of the regulations. However we did make a recommendation to the provider to provide suitable training for staff to ensure they can meet the needs of people diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. The provider had taken action and training had been delivered.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good:

People, visitors and staff gave us positive feedback about the management team. They were happy to approach them if they had a concern and were confident actions would be taken if required. The registered manager and staff promoted person centred care and a family like atmosphere at the service where people were treated equally with any diverse requirements accepted and met.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. The registered manager often stayed at the service to observe staff levels and staff practice.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. The staff demonstrated an understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA). Where people lacked capacity, mental capacity assessments were completed and best interest decisions made in line with the MCA.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. DoLS provide legal protection for those vulnerable people who are, or may become, deprived of their liberty. They had made appropriate applications to the local authority DoLS team for people they had assessed as needing to be deprived of their liberty.

People were supported by staff who had the required recruitment checks in place and were trained and had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff had received training in understanding Parkinson’s. Staff had received a full induction and were knowledgeable about the signs of abuse and how to report concerns.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet. People were asked about their preferred meal choice and were seen enjoying their lunchtime meal.

People received their prescribed medicines on time and in a safe way. Staff treated people with dignity and respect in a caring and compassionate way.

People were supported to undertake activities. There was a program of activities for staff to use as a prompt. People were seen enjoying the activities during our visit. Staff said where people were not able to take part in the group activities they sat with them on a one to one basis.

Risk assessments were undertaken for people to ensure their health needs were identified. Care plans reflected people’s needs and gave staff clear guidance about how to support them safely. Care plans were person centred and people where able, and their families had been involved in their development. People where able were involved in making decisions and planning their own care on a day to day basis. People were referred promptly to health care services when required and received on-going healthcare support.

The premises were well managed to keep people safe. There were individual emergency plans in place to protect people in the event of a fire or emergency.

The provider had a robust quality monitoring system at the service. The provider actively sought the views of people, their relatives and staff through staff and residents meetings, surveys and questionnaires to continuously improve the service. There was a complaints procedure in place. There had been no complaints since our last inspection.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

28 and 29 July 2015

During a routine inspection

Fairlight Manor provides accommodation and support for up to 19 older people living with a dementia type illness. Some people are independent and require little assistance, while others require assistance with personal care, daily living and moving around the home. There were 17 people living at the home during the inspection.

The home is a converted older building, bedrooms are on three floors, there was a lift to enable people to access all parts of the home and a secure garden to the rear of the building. The registered manager is part owner of the home.

The registered manager was present during 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

This inspection took place on the 28 and 29 July and was unannounced. The last inspection was carried out on the 13 May 2013 and we found no concerns.

Relevant training to support people with Parkinson’s disease had not been provided and staff were not aware of how to meet these specific needs.

A safeguarding policy was in place and staff had attended safeguarding training. They had an understanding of recognising risks of abuse to people and how to raise concerns if they had any.

Risk assessments had been completed as part of the care planning process; these identified people’s specific needs and included guidance for staff to follow to ensure people received the support and care they needed.

There were enough staff working in the home to meet people’s needs, and recruitment procedures were in place to ensure only suitable people worked at the home. Staff said they were supported to deliver safe and effective care, and demonstrated they knew people well and felt they enabled people to maintain their independence.

There were systems in place to manage medicines. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines. Staff followed relevant policies, they administered medicines safely and completed the administration records appropriately.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The registered manager and staff had an understanding of their responsibilities and processes of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People told us the food was very good. Staff asked people what they wanted to eat, choices were available for each meal, and people enjoyed the food provided. People told us they decided what they wanted to do, some joined in activities while others chose to sit quietly in their room or communal areas.

People had access to health professionals as and when they required it. The visits were recorded in the care plans with details of any changes to support provided as guidance for staff to follow when planning care.

A complaints procedure was in place. This was displayed on the notice board near the entrance to the building, and given to people, and relatives, when they moved into the home. People said they did not have anything to complain about, and relatives said they were aware of the procedures and who to complain to, but had not needed to use them.

Care and support was personalised to meet each person’s individual needs. Care plans had been reviewed regularly; with the involvement of people living in the home and/or their relatives if appropriate, these reflected people’s needs and included guidance for staff to follow to meet them.

An activity programme suggested a number of activities people might like to participate in, but this was very flexible. One person said, “We decide what we want to do and when, and it usually changes depending on how we feel.”

People, relatives and staff said they management were very approachable, and they all felt involved in decisions about how the service developed with ongoing discussion through residents and staff meetings. In addition feedback was sought from people, their relatives and other visitors to the home through satisfaction questionnaires, and staff also completed a questionnaire.

The registered manager had quality assurance systems in place to audit the support provided at the home. These included audits of care plans, medicines, menus, accidents and complaints.

We recommend the provider seek advice with regard to providing suitable training for staff to ensure they can meet the needs of people diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.

 

 

   

13 May 2013

During a routine inspection

There were 18 people who used the service at the time of our inspection. We used a number of different methods to help us understand their views and experiences, as not all of them were able to tell us.

We observed the care provided and looked at supporting documentation. We spoke to three members of staff, the manager, a relative of someone who used the service and a visiting health professional. We talked briefly with five people who used the service.

Records showed that people's care needs had been assessed, planned, reviewed and delivered in line with their individual care plan. People's medication was managed safely and they had access to healthcare support.

Staff were well trained, recruitment procedures were robust and staffing levels were sufficient for the needs of those who used the service. People who used the service said that staff provided them with all the support and assistance that they needed and wanted.

There were systems in place to identify, assess and manage risks to people who used the service.

5 September 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At our last inspection on the 17 May 2012 we found shortfalls that the provider had to take action to address. At that time we found a lack of guidance within care plans for care workers to follow when supporting some people and that the local protocol for vulnerable adults had not always been followed. We also found that and not all care workers had received the training and training updates they needed to fulfil their role. At this inspection we found that improvements needed to reach compliance had been made.

The people we spoke with were happy with the care they were receiving. They were relaxed and comfortable with each other and in their surroundings.

Care workers told us that they had completed a lot of training over recent months. They told us that care planning training had helped them to complete the care plans adopted by the home and that they had a good understanding of the needs of the people living at the home.

17 May 2012

During a routine inspection

The people who lived in the home, that could give us their views, told us that they were involved in the assesmsent process and that their preferences were taken into consideration. They told us that they were able to make their own decisions about their daily routines and that staff were kind and caring.

We observed staff supporting people appropriatly throughout our visit and speaking to people in a kind and respectful manner. We observed people being offered choice in respect of food, drink and activities throughout the day. People told us they enjoyed the food provided. One visitor told us the food was good and that they had no complaints.

Peoples' needs had been assessed and care and treatment had been planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. However people's needs had not been reassessed when accidents and incidents had occurred.

One person commented 'The staff are very good here, they look after us well.' They told us that they call the doctor for them when needed and that they had supported them well since they had moved there.

There were a few people living at the home who had on occasions had become distressed and aggressive. Whilst staff described to us how they supported these people, there were no guidelines in place for them to follow to minimise people's distress or of harm to others occurring.

People told us that they felt safe and that they felt comfortable raising any concerns with the manager, care staff or provider. Care records detailed accidents and incidents that had occurred. However when incidents of aggression had occurred the provider had not, at the time, contacted the local authority to establish whether or not these incidents needed to be investigated under local safeguarding protocol.

The staff we spoke with told us the dementia care training and the pressure area care training had helped them understand the needs of the people living at the home and that as a result of the training, they had changed the way they worked with certain individuals.

Records showed that the majority of staff had not completed the training and training updates they needed to carry out their role. However the provider told us that there were plans in place for all staff to receive the training they needed within 2012 and this included training in abuse and the safeguarding of vulnerable adults.

15 September 2011

During an inspection looking at part of the service

People living in the home have varying degrees of dementia and people we spoke to were not all able to tell us about the care they receive. However, we observed people engaging with staff that were attentive, observed their wishes and treated them with dignity and respect.

2 February 2011

During an inspection in response to concerns

People living in the home have varying degrees of dementia and people we spoke to were not able to tell us about the care they receive. However, we observed people engaging with staff that were attentive, observed their wishes and treated them with dignity and respect.