We carried out a review of the data available to us about Fairfax House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Fairfax House, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
People were protected by the home's infection prevention and control procedures. Staff used personal protective equipment (PPE) in line with the latest government guidance and the home had a good supply of PPE. Staff had been trained how to use PPE safely and we observed them putting this training into practice.
The home was clean and additional cleaning measures had been put in place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The management team were completing regular checks to ensure infection prevention and control measures were being followed consistently.
People were supported to keep in contact with family and friends. Visiting arrangements had been regularly reviewed and changed to reflect the latest guidance. When visitors were not able to physically enter the building people were supported to use a 'visiting pod' and make video calls.
All staff working in the home were fully vaccinated against COVID-19. The registered manager was aware of the requirement for people working in and entering the home to be vaccinated. Staff were being regularly tested for COVID-19, although the registered manager had not consistently kept a record of the results of some of these tests. The registered manager said they would change their way of recording all tests to ensure they were kept up to date.
Fairfax House is a care home for up to 20 older people in one adapted building. 19 people were living in the home at the time of the inspection.
What life is like for people using this service
Following the last inspection, the registered manager had made improvements to the safety of the building. Radiators in all areas of the home had been covered to minimise the risk of burns if people fell against them.
People received support to take their medicines safely. There were enough staff to provide the care that people needed.
People were supported make choices and have as much control and independence as possible. People liked the food provided by the home and staff helped people where needed. People were able to access health services if needed. Staff received suitable training to give them the skills to meet people’s needs. The registered manager provided good support for staff to be able to do their job effectively.
People received caring and compassionate support from kind and committed staff. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity. People and their relatives were positive about the care they received and about the quality of staff.
People had been supported to develop care plans that were specific to them. These plans were regularly reviewed with people to keep them up to date.
The service was well-led, with an experienced registered manager and management team. People felt the management team had a good understanding of any issues in the home. The quality of the service was regularly assessed, and action taken to make improvements where needed.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 10 February 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
This inspection took place on 12 December 2016 and was unannounced. We returned on16 December 2016 to complete the inspection.
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. The registered manager is responsible for the day to day management of the home. At the time of the inspection, the registered manager was on leave and therefore not available. In the registered manager’s absence, the provider assisted with the inspection and was available throughout.
Potential risks to people’s safety had been identified and addressed. However, covers had not been fitted to radiators so people were at risk of injury, if they touched or fell against the hot surfaces. The provider told us consideration would be given to this and the installation of radiator covers would be added to next year’s business plan.
Staff were responsive to people’s needs and consistently spoke to people in a caring, friendly and respectful manner. There were many positive interactions between people and staff, particularly at lunchtime whilst assisting people to eat. Staff spent time with people and engaged them in general conversation and reminiscence. Staff were attentive and provided a relaxed but engaging environment for people.
There was a strong, person centred ethos, which was adopted throughout the staff team. People were encouraged to follow their own routines and make choices about aspects of their lives such as what time they got up and went to bed. People were encouraged to undertake meaningful activity and regularly access the local community. People’s rights to privacy, dignity, choice and independence were consistently promoted.
People were supported to remain healthy and received sufficient to eat and drink. They received their medicines in a person centred manner. However, one medicine had not been signed as given and one record did not give staff information about a variable dose. The provider told us they would address these issues without delay. All other areas of medicine management were safely managed.
There were sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs. Adequate staffing levels were clearly linked to the provision of good care. As a result of this, staffing numbers were adjusted as people’s needs changed and dependency increased. The addition of two waking night staff had recently been introduced to enhance people’s safety.
People were supported by staff who were well trained and knew them well. The staff training programme was detailed and covered a comprehensive range of subjects. There was a strong focus on staff’s learning and development and the impact this had on good care provision. Staff felt well supported and regularly met with their manager to discuss their work. There were schemes in place to value staff and enhance morale.
Systems were in place to minimise the risk of people suffering abuse. Staff received regular training and updates in safeguarding. This equipped them to be clear of their responsibilities to identify and report any suspicion or allegation of abuse.
Management systems were well organised. There were regular audits, which monitored the quality of the service. People, their relatives, staff and health care professionals were encouraged to give their views about their experiences. Requests were considered and implemented to improve the service people received. People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint but did not feel the need to do so. They were confident any issues would be appropriately resolved without fear of reprisal.
People and their relatives were complimentary about the staff, the registered manager and the provider. In addition, there were many positive comments about the overall care provided and the home’s relaxed and homely atmosphere.
People told us they were very happy with the care they received. They said staff assisted them with their personal care in a caring and considerate manner.
We saw people were encouraged to make decisions in their daily lives and their rights to privacy and dignity were maintained.
People had good support from health care professionals and were able to make their own appointments if they wanted to.
A comprehensive range of social and leisure opportunities were offered to people, both in house and within the local community .
People received their medicines in a safe and efficient manner. Staff followed procedures and were regularly monitored to ensure best practice.
Staff were given a range of opportunities to develop their knowledge and skills in a way which met their individual needs. Staff were fully supported and worked well as a team.
People were encouraged to give their views about the service and its development. A clear auditing system was in place to monitor the on going quality of the service provided.