Fairhaven Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

The management team had a strong culture of kindness and compassion that extended beyond people to their relatives and visitors. Feedback we received during and after the assessment reflected this.

People and their relatives were complimentary about staff and their caring approach. One person told us, “All staff deserve a medal, they are wonderful, so kind.” Relatives’ comments included, “They [staff] are very kindly towards [person]; they get a good response from them”, “They [staff] always call [person] by their name, always explain to [person] what they are going to do. They look after [person] really well, they want for nothing” and “They [staff] are treating [person] like a human being.”

Professionals were also highly complementary of the kind approach of the management and staff team. Comments from professionals included, “All the staff show that they are caring, they treat each person as an individual and understand their wants/needs – they engage effectively with the residents”, “Staff are responsive, caring, and talk about residents with respect” and “Whilst I was present in the home, I saw staff interacting with residents in a positive, person-centred manner, they used the person’s name and also spoke to them as they would wish, either with appropriate banter or with language they would understand and wish to be used.”

Throughout the site visits we observed staff demonstrated kindness and compassion through personalised approaches that upheld people’s dignity. Staff were attentive, responsive and patient with people to help ensure their comfort and safety.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People and relatives felt valued and listened to and confirmed they were treated as individuals and that staff knew them well. Comments included, “They [staff] are very attentive; they are very aware of what [person] needs and doesn’t need”, “They [staff] know [person] very well, they know what they do and don’t like, they know which workers they respond to” and “Yes, they [staff] know [person]. They know [person] likes their food and likes a bit of peace sometimes. They know the [other people] they like to sit with.”

Health and social care professionals provided positive feedback on how the service treated people as individuals. A professional told us, “The client I was visiting was encouraged to help in the dining room by laying the table, folding napkins etc, they told me they liked doing this and likes to feel included and helpful.” This professional went on to explain how this approach had a positive impact on the person.

Staff tailored their approach to make sure their care was person-centred and had regard to people’s cultural backgrounds and beliefs. Staff spoken with clearly knew the people they supported and were able to describe how people liked to receive care, their personal preferences and what was important to them. During our assessment visits we heard staff talk to people about subjects they were interested in.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People and relatives confirmed they were well supported by staff to maintain as much independence as possible. Comments from people and relatives included, “The improvement [person’s] made, they [staff] put in a lot of time building their independence up” and “The staff will always help me when I need it.” Professionals we spoke with also provided positive feedback about the staff and management team ensuring people’s independence while empowering people to have choice and control over their lives. A healthcare professional told us about a person who had regained a significant amount of independence while residing at Fairhaven, which had resulted in this person being discharged from additional healthcare input.

Care plans viewed contained detailed information about the level of support people required and what they could do for themselves. Staff described to us how they promoted and encouraged people to remain independent. A staff member said, “I try encouraging people to do what they can for themselves, I will do things like give them their toothbrush so they can brush their own teeth.”

All the people and relatives we spoke with confirmed they were offered a range of choices about how they lived, what they did and how they were supported. A person said, “Yes, I get choices, I can choose when I get up or go to bed and if I want to go in the garden.” A relative told us, “Very much so, [person] would often go to the lounge at two in the morning, he could have a cuppa or sit with the girls.” Another relative said, “[Person] wouldn’t sit and wait to be asked, they would just do what they wanted to.”

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

During our assessment visits we observed staff responded quickly to people and provided reassurance appropriately. We also observed they responded to call bells in a timely way, which was confirmed when we reviewed the providers regularly completed call bell analysis. Staff were visible and accessible throughout the service, staff rotas reflected what the management team told us about staffing levels and a dependency assessment demonstrated an understanding of the level of support people required.

People and relatives did not raise any concerns in relation to the responsiveness of the staff. A relative said, “If they [staff] had any concerns about [person] the first thing they [staff] do is consult the doctor and then contact me.”

Health and social care professionals were complimentary about the management and staff teams’ responsiveness to people’s immediate needs and any deterioration in their health and wellbeing.

The management team and staff described how they acted on concerns linked to people's care and health by escalating them to the appropriate professionals. On review of people’s care records, it was noted referrals had been made to healthcare specialists where required.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff felt valued and were clear that they could speak with the management team at any time and felt that their views, opinions and suggestions would be listened to. Staff were very positive about the registered manager and deputy manager and described them as approachable and supportive.

The management team understood the need to make reasonable adjustments for staff who may have social, religious or culture needs to fulfil and individually tailored support for staff could be offered if specific situations arose.