Fairview

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. People were supported by staff and a management team who took active steps to ensure there was a fair and open culture where concerns could be raised safely, and any unsafe practices identified and rectified. People were engaged by the provider to review their care and support and this included conversations about potential closed cultures. A closed culture is an environment where poor practices go unchallenged. We found Fairview was an open and supportive environment where people, relatives and staff could freely express their views.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. People had individual communication and needs passports which were reviewed when there was a change in need. These went with them to appointments or assessments to support continuity of care and equal access to services. We saw instances where people needed to access alternative healthcare services owing to unforeseen circumstances. Staff worked with the person to ensure the transition was seamless and supportive ensuring the right outcome for the person.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately. People were supported by staff who had been trained in safeguarding and knew what to do if they suspected something was wrong. One person told us they didn’t have to worry about anything, and the staff were very good.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found appropriate assessments and applications had been made in line with the recommended procedures whilst still supporting people to live the lives they wanted. Any restrictions in place were authorised, proportionate and the least restrictive.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. People were supported in the development of their individual risk assessments. If needed, those close to them were also involved. One relative said they felt safe for their family member living at Fairview.

People were supported by staff who knew the individual risks and assisted them in the least restrictive way possible whilst minimising the potential for harm. People were supported by a provider which was not risk averse and risk assessments were used to support people safely but without unnecessary restrictions. For example, the use of public transport was encouraged to build self-esteem, personal growth and confidence without relying on staff driving people which may have been a safer and easier option in some instances.

The service had not always detected or controlled potential risks in the care environment. For example, we saw the use of an unprotected portable radiator and some uncovered fixed radiators. This was a potential risk of scalds and burns. Not all wardrobes had been risk assessed to see if they presented a risk of injury from toppling. However, once these were identified the provider acted to address the potential risks and made physical alterations to reduce the potential for harm. The provider did complete other checks to ensure people lived in a safe environment. This included regular fire prevention system checks and checks to the water systems. We saw 1 person had specific adaptation to their rooms. This involved the person making decisions themselves regarding the decoration whilst the provider made adaptations to ensure it was safe and reflected the person’s choices.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. People and relatives told us they were supported by enough staff to effectively support them. We saw people interacting with staff in a relaxed and friendly way. People were supported to direct their day and staff responded positively to them. Staff had been safely recruited. When people required additional support, this was matched with staff who could support the person’s specific interests and needs. We saw 1 instance where a person had expressed a specific activity, and the staff member mirrored this interest and helped the person plan their day accordingly. People were supported by staff who had received training in line with the Governments recommended training to support those living with a learning disability or autism.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly if required. People were supported in a home which was clean and tidy where staff followed effective infection prevention and control practices.

The service made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened. People’s medicines were regularly reviewed to ensure they were prescribed for the right reason. When people needed “as and when” medicines, these were safely recorded with the maximum dose in a 24-hour period and time between administration documented. People’s medicines were supported by individual medication care plans detailing what the medicine was and when it was needed. The provider observed the principles of STOMP (Stopping The Over-Medication of People with a Learning Disability, Autism or Both), which ensured the right medicine was prescribed for the right reason.