You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 10 May 2017

We inspected Fairby Grange on Monday 27 March 2017. Fairby Grange provides care, support and accommodation for a maximum of 27 older people some of whom lie with dementia. The service provides both permanent and respite place. There were 21 people living at the service at the time of our inspection.

There was no registered manager in post at time of inspection. The registered provider had an acting manager in post that was going through the processes of becoming registered with the Care Quality Commission. 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.

At our previous inspection on 14 March 2016, we found three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities). These breaches were in relation to assessing individual risk of people living at the service, understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and appropriate records and quality monitoring systems. At this inspection, improvements had been made and the service was compliant with all regulations.

The registered provider had systems in place to protect people against abuse and harm. The registered provider had effective policies and procedures that gave staff guidance on how to report abuse. The acting manager had robust systems in place to record and investigate any concerns.

Risks to people's safety had been assessed and actions taken to protect people from the risk of harm. The environment was clean and tidy.

Medicines were stored securely and safely administered by staff who had received appropriate training to do so.

There was sufficient staff to provide care to people throughout the day and night. When staff were recruited, they were subject to checks to ensure they were safe to work in the care sector.

Mental capacity assessments were being carried out and these were decision specific. Staff and the registered manager demonstrated good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. However, we found that one area had been missed. We have made a recommendation about this in our report.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Appropriate applications to restrict people's freedom had been submitted and the least restrictive options were considered as per the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were referred to health care professionals when needed. People’s records showed that appropriate referrals were being made to GP’s, speech and language therapists, dentists and chiropodists.

Staff were well trained with the right skills and knowledge to provide people with the care and assistance they needed.

People were being supported to have a nutritious diet that met their needs. People were supported to eat by suitably trained staff.

Relatives spoke positively about staff. Staff communicated with people in ways that were understood when providing support. People’s private information was stored securely and discussions about people’s personal needs took place in a private area where it could not be overheard.

People had complete freedom of choice on how they wanted to live their lives. Staff supported people to make choices and understood the importance of this.

The provider had ensured that there were effective processes in place to fully investigate any complaints. Records showed that outcomes of the investigations were communicated to relevant people. People and their relatives were encouraged to give feedback through resident meetings and yearly surveys.

The acting manager was approachable and supportive and took an active role in the day-to-day running of the service. Staff were able to discuss concerns with them at any time and know they would be addressed appropriately.

Inspection areas



Updated 10 May 2017

The service was safe.

People were protected from abuse by trained staff who understood the providers safeguarding policies and procedures.

The provider had ensured that the environment and equipment was well maintained by carrying out appropriate safety checks and servicing.

The provider had ensured that there were sufficient numbers of staff in place to safely provide care and support to people.

People had risk assessments in place that were personalised to their needs.



Updated 10 May 2017

The service was effective.

The provider had ensured that appropriate applications were made regarding Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards

People had access to a range of food options that was nutritious and met their needs. People were supported to maintain their diets when required.

Staff received training that gave them the skills and knowledge required to provide care and support to people.



Updated 10 May 2017

The service was caring.

Staff demonstrated good knowledge of the people they supported. Staff treated people with dignity and respect at all times.

Relatives told us they were involved with the planning and reviews of their care plans. Care plans recorded when people and their relatives were involved with their care.

Relatives spoke positively about staff and told us they were happy with the service that they were receiving



Updated 10 May 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s friends and family were made to feel welcome by staff when they visited.

The acting manager ensured that complaints were appropriately responded to and included full investigation and outcomes.

People had a choice of suitable activities available to them.



Updated 10 May 2017

The service was well-led.

Relatives and staff spoke positively about the acting manager. Staff told us they felt supported and could approach the acting manager with any concerns.

The provider had ensured that quality-monitoring systems were in place to identify shortfalls and make improvements to the service.

The culture of the service was centred on the people living there.