Archived: Fairview House Residential Home

We found the following examples of good practice.

There were clear arrangements in place for screening visitors to the home. This included taking their temperature, carrying out a lateral flow test and asking questions in relation to whether the person had symptoms of Covid. There was a visiting pod in the grounds of the home with a dividing screen so that people could meet their relatives safely. Window visits had also taken place. The registered manager was working closely with families in order to manage new visiting guidelines safely.

Regular testing of staff and people in the home was taking place in order to identify any positive cases quickly and protect others in the home. Staff were supported to isolate if they or family member needed to as a result of symptoms or a positive test. No agency staff were being used, and staff weren’t moving between homes. This lowered the risk of transmission. Staff were being supported to avoid use of public transport to get in to work.

Cleaning measures were in place to reduce the risk of transmission. This included attention to high touch points such as railings and door handles. Flooring in the home had been changed from carpet to hard flooring, during the pandemic to make it easier to clean. There were wipes available in bathroom to ensure they were cleaned after each use. Hand sanitising gel was available throughout the home.

The home had good supplies of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and we saw that staff were wearing this. Clinical bins were available for disposal of used PPE.

Procedures for safe admission of people in to the home were in place. This included ensuring that the person had a negative test before arriving and ensuring they isolated in their room for 14 days. People were given a ‘virtual’ tour of the building to help prepare them for moving in.

People’s experience of using this service:

Without exception all the people and relatives we spoke with praised the service. One person said the registered manager was “very approachable and very visible and a relative described the service as “Homely”.

People felt safe and well cared for. People’s preferences were respected, and staff were sensitive and attentive to people’s needs. Staff were seen to be kind, caring and friendly and it was clear staff knew people and their relatives well.

There were sufficient numbers of staff employed to ensure people’s needs were met. Recruitment practices were safe, and staff were well-trained.

Risks to people’s health, safety and well-being were assessed and management plans were in place to ensure risks were mitigated as much as possible. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to safeguard people.

Some care plans required more detail about people’s abilities and preferences in relation to how they wished to be supported with their personal hygiene needs.

People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Medicine management practices were safe.

There was a variety of social activities arranged and the registered manager.

The environment was safe, and equipment regularly serviced to ensure it remained in safe working order.

Quality assurance processes undertaken by the registered manager and the provider ensured people received high quality care that met their needs and respected their preferences. People and their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care.

Rating at last inspection: Good. The last inspection report was published on 18 July 2017

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained rated Good overall.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

There was a registered manager 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.

All staff received awareness of vulnerable adult abuse training and were knowledgeable about safeguarding issues. They knew what to do if there were concerns about a person’s welfare and who to report their concerns too. Safe recruitment procedures were followed to ensure only suitable staff were employed. The appropriate steps were in place to protect people from being harmed.

Risk assessments were completed for each person. This ensured that where risks were identified there were plans in place to reduce or eliminate the risk. Medicines were managed safely. The premises were well maintained and regular maintenance checks were completed. Checks were also made of the fire safety systems, the hot and cold water temperatures and equipment to make sure they were safe for staff and people to use.

Staffing levels per shift were kept under review and the number of staff on duty was adjusted as and when necessary. The levels were determined by looking at the collective care and support needs of the people who lived at Fairview House. Staff had enough time to meet people’s needs because there were enough of them on duty at any given time. People were safe because the staffing levels were sufficient.

New staff completed an induction training programme at the start of their employment and also completed the Care Certificate. All other staff had mandatory training to complete to ensure they had the necessary skills and knowledge to care for people correctly. Care staff were encouraged to complete nationally recognised qualifications in health and social care.

An assessment of each person capacity to make decisions was made as part of the care planning process. People were always asked to consent before receiving care. They were encouraged to make their own choices about aspects of their daily life. We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were provided with sufficient food and drink. Consideration was given to their likes and dislikes and any specific dietary needs for catered for. Where people were at risk of losing weight, they were provided with supplement drinks or fortified foods. In the hot weather people were offered regular fluids in order to prevent dehydration. Arrangements were made for people to see their GP and other healthcare professionals when they needed to.

People had good relationships with the staff who looked after them. Each person had a keyworker who would link with the person’s family or friends. People were given the opportunity to take part in a range of different meaningful social activities. There were group activities and external entertainers visited the service on a regular basis.

There were good assessment and care planning arrangements in place which meant people were provided with a person centred service that met their individual care and support needs. The service responded well to changes in people’s care needs. Staff received a handover report at the start of their shift which made aware of any changes in people’s needs. They made records each day detailing how the person’s needs had been met.

The staff team was led by an experienced registered manager and a deputy. The staff team were provided with good leadership. Staff meetings ensured they were kept up to date with changes and developments in the service.

The registered provider had a regular programme of audits in place which ensured that the quality and safety of the service was checked. These checks were completed on a daily, weekly or monthly basis.