- Care home
Fairfax House
Assessment report published 28 August 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Fairfax House is a care home for 20 people. At the time of this assessment there were 18 people using the service.
This service supports adults over 65 years some of whom have dementia, mental health conditions, physical disabilities and sensory impairments.
We carried out this assessment on 6 August 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
People were cared for by staff who had been recruited safely and had the skills and knowledge to support them safely and effectively. Staff said they felt well supported by the registered manager and able to approach them with any concerns. One member of staff told us, “[Registered manager] is always in handovers, always talks with us and [they] are straight onto any concerns.”
Risks to people’s safety had been assessed and there was guidance available for staff to know how to provide safe care and support. People were safeguarded from abuse and staff received regular training on safeguarding and whistleblowing.
Medicines had been administered safely and staff had competence checks and medicines training. Health and safety checks were regularly completed, and the environment was clean and well maintained. We did find some window restrictors needed updating. The provider said they had updated some restrictors and would continue the work to update them all. Incidents and accidents were recorded and reviewed by management. If needed further actions were taken to help keep people safe such as referrals to healthcare specialists.
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 that staff and management worked within the MCA, however, some best interests’ records required more specific information. For example, not all the options considered were recorded to demonstrate the decision made was the least restrictive. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions, and they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.
People had assessments of their needs prior to moving into the service and leaders regularly reviewed them to make sure information was accurate and up to date. Assessments covered a wide range of needs such as eating and drinking and health conditions. People had a choice of meals and were encouraged to drink plenty of fluids. People’s clinical outcomes were monitored such as weight loss, re-positioning and infections. The registered manager told us they were proud that nobody had developed pressure ulcers at the service, despite some people being very frail. There was good teamwork and staff worked well with healthcare professionals. Referrals were timely and leaders had good local knowledge of services available.
The service had an electronic care planning system which enabled staff to have timely and accurate access to care records. People had personalised care plans which were regularly reviewed.
Governance systems were effective in assessing and monitoring quality and safety. Since our last inspection there had been a change of owner, and they had introduced new governance systems. This provided the service with additional oversight as an external company was completing additional quality and safety checks. A recent mock inspection had identified some ways in which the service could improve, and this was being implemented. We did find some statutory notifications which had not been sent to Care Quality Commission (CQC) which the registered manager addressed whilst we were at the service.
People's experience of this service
People told us they had chosen to live at this service and felt it was well managed. People and relatives were very complimentary about the registered manager and the service. Comments included, “It is a nice atmosphere in the home, it is by far the best one. The manager is lovely,” and “The manager is beyond excellent.” We observed the registered manager interacting with everyone, it was evident they knew people really well. There was a complaints process, and people and relatives knew how to raise any concerns.
People said there were enough staff to care for them, and staff responded to their call bells in a timely manner. People also thought staff were well trained. Comments about the staff included, “There are plenty of staff, never a shortage and they are all great,” and “The staff are well trained, and I think there are enough staff here. I always have a rapid response when I need to press my bell. They often pop their heads around the door.”
People were happy with the food. Comments included, “The food is good,” and “I especially love the puddings.” People had choice of food and easy access to snacks and drinks.
Staff had good information about people’s circumstances and life history. This helped them understand people’s needs which was good for people with dementia who were not always able to communicate effectively. People had continuity with their care as staff were experienced and knew people well. The registered manager carried out care audits which helped them make sure staff treated people with kindness and respect.
People had a choice of planned activities, and we observed a music activity which was very inclusive. There was accessible garden space which people had been using in the warm weather. People were supported to follow their own interests and continue to do activities they enjoyed prior to moving into the service. Staff supported people to access transport and regularly engage in their local community.
People and relatives said the service was always clean. One person said, “The cleaners do a great job, everywhere is so clean.” The service had out of hours arrangements and there was always a leader or management on call. The local GP visited weekly and when needed other healthcare professionals also visited people at the service. Leaders told us they could organise for most healthcare services to come into the service, which helped people with restricted mobility who were not able to leave the premises easily.
People and relatives said they would recommend the service to others. One relative said, “I would highly recommend this home to anyone, it is friendly, homely, well run and excellent staff.”