You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 6 October 2017

Fairways is a residential home registered to provide accommodation, care and support for up to eight adults with a learning disability, autistic spectrum conditions and associated complex needs. There were eight people living in the service when we carried out an unannounced inspection on 1 August 2017.

A registered manager was in post. 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 last inspection of 29 July 2015 we rated the service as overall requires improvement. We found there were breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Improvements were needed regarding safe systems when recruiting staff, meeting people’s nutritional and hydration needs and supporting people with activities appropriate to their needs. The provider submitted an action plan to us about the measures they were taking to address the concerns found at the last inspection.

At this inspection we found that the previous shortfalls in recruitment had been addressed. Appropriate checks on staff were carried out with sufficient numbers employed who had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs. Retention of staff was good and supported continuity of care.

Progress had been made to ensure there were sufficient systems to ensure that people’s nutritional and hydration needs were assessed and actions in place to mitigate risk to people identified as at risk of malnutrition.

Improvements had been made and were ongoing to protect people from the risks of social isolation and loneliness. People were encouraged to maintain relationships that mattered to them such as family, community and other social links. They were supported to pursue their hobbies, to participate in activities of their choice and to develop daily living skills.

The atmosphere in the service was friendly and welcoming. People received care and support that was personalised to them and met their individual needs and wishes. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and interacted with them in a caring, compassionate and professional manner. They were knowledgeable about people’s choices, views and preferences.

People were safe and staff knew what actions to take to protect them from abuse. The provider had processes in place to identify and manage risk. Regular assessments had been carried out and care records were in place which reflected individual needs and wishes.

Appropriate arrangements were in place to ensure people’s medicines were obtained, stored and administered safely. People were supported to attend appointments with relevant professionals to maintain their health and well-being. Where people required assistance with their dietary needs there were systems in place to provide this support safely.

We found that people were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People and or their representatives, where appropriate, were involved in making decisions about their care and support arrangements. As a result people received care and support which was planned and delivered to meet their specific needs. Staff listened to people and acted on what they said.

There was a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to voice their concerns if they were unhappy with the care they received. People’s feedback was valued and acted on. There was visible leadership within the service and a clear management structure.

Effective systems and procedures had been implemented to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided. Identified shortfalls were addressed promptly w

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 6 October 2017

The service was safe.

There were sufficient numbers of staff who had been recruited safely and who had the skills to meet people’s needs.

Staff knew how to keep people safe from abuse. There were systems in place to protect people.

The likelihood of harm had been reduced because risks had been assessed and guidance and training provided to staff on how to manage risks and keep people safe.

People received their medicines safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 6 October 2017

The service was effective.

People’s nutritional needs were assessed and they were supported to maintain a balanced diet.

Staff were trained and supported to meet people’s individual needs. The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 was understood by staff and appropriately implemented.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to appropriate services which ensured they received ongoing healthcare support.

Caring

Good

Updated 6 October 2017

The service was caring.

Feedback about the staff approach and relationships people had developed with staff were positive.

Staff knew people well, respected their preferences and treated them with dignity and respect. People’s independence was promoted and respected.

People were listened to and their views valued when making decisions which affected them.

Responsive

Good

Updated 6 October 2017

The service was responsive.

Improvements had been made and were ongoing to support people to pursue their hobbies, participate in activities of their choice and to maintain links within their local community.

People’s care and support needs were regularly assessed and reviewed. Where changes to their needs and preferences were identified these were respected and acted upon.

Feedback including comments, concerns and complaints were investigated and responded to and used to improve the quality of the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 6 October 2017

The service was well-led.

There was an open and transparent culture at the service. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to contribute to decisions to improve and develop the service.

Staff were encouraged and supported by the management team and were clear on their roles and responsibilities.

Effective systems and procedures had been implemented to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided.