Fairfield House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People had an initial assessment before they moved into the service to determine if the service was a suitable place for them and they could be supported by staff. Assessments included information about people’s health conditions, communication needs, emotional needs, nutritional and personal care needs and people’s history. A healthcare professional told us, “Nurses or the registered manager undertake an assessment of each resident’s needs prior to accepting a new resident looking at physical, psychological and behavioural needs. On occasion the team have discussed potential new residents prior to accepting them to discuss any potential medical concerns.”

People and those involved in their care took part in assessments and reviews of their needs. Records showed their views and opinions were respected, listened to and implemented as part of the day-to-day support. A person told us, “I have everything I need and I can ask if I need anything.”

People told us their care needs and personal preferences were discussed with them and carried out by staff who were consistent in their approach which was important to people.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Nationally recognised tools were used to determine risks to people’s health, such as, the Waterlow tool which identifies risks of skin integrity deterioration. We saw care was planned in response to the outcomes, for example, people were given pressure relieving equipment and staff were directed to support people to reposition to prevent pressure sores.

People's health conditions had been assessed and planned for. For example, people had choking risk assessments in place with recommended interventions, if this applied to them. If there were concerns about people’s diets, staff contacted speech and language therapists or dieticians to receive recommendations for staff and people to follow. Care plans provided staff with guidance about how to provide effective care and support. Staff observed people when they were eating their meals if they were at risk of choking. We saw staff provided assistance when people needed support to eat their meal, this was carried out promptly and respectfully.

Health needs were monitored. For example, people’s weights were regularly checked to enable responsive action to any significant increase or decrease in weights. This meant concerns could easily be identified and raised with the GP. A healthcare professional told us, “There has been a really big improvement in recording information such as how much residents are eating and drinking, bowel actions, monitoring wounds, any behavioural incidents and documentation surrounding falls. I feel that the documentation in these areas is very good.”

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. Care records confirmed people attended health appointments with a wide range of health professionals to make sure they received the treatment they needed. A healthcare professional told us,“Nurses appropriately utilise the services available to them to assess the residents as needed. For example non urgent issues are presented to me for review on the weekly round. If a more urgent issue arises the nurses make use of the daily care home triage service.”

We found information sharing with professionals to be positive so continuity of care for people was effectively managed.

The manager knew who to contact for advice about people’s health and support needs and people had weekly checks from their GP. For example, people’s healthcare practitioners such as their local GP, speech and language therapists and occupational therapists. People and relatives confirmed staff worked well with other teams to get the support and treatment they required. A healthcare professional told us Fairfield House had, “A very good relationship with the local GP and other health professionals.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Systems and processes were in place to continually monitor people's health related needs. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s health care needs and support. There were effective communication procedures in place to keep staff up to date with any changes and important information. Changes in people’s behaviour or presentation which showed a deterioration in their health or wellbeing, were recognised by staff. A healthcare professional told us, “Since the new clinical leadership and management team have been in place I feel that they are much more responsive to actions I recommend.”

Relatives were confident their family member’s health needs were met, and they were supported to live comfortably in their surroundings. A relative told us, “We have been really impressed with the staff and how they interact with ‘our loved one. They get them involved in activities and when ‘X’s up to it they helps with odd jobs like folding up their laundry etc. Staff go out of their way to include ‘X’.”

Monthly audits of peoples dining experience were carried out and we saw action had been taken, such as photographs of meal choices displayed near the entrance to the dining room to help people decide what they would like to eat.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff and leaders completed personalised mental capacity assessments, adhering to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). People were asked for their consent and were involved in day-to-day choices and decisions. This was clearly recorded in care plans. Throughout our visit, we saw staff asked people for permission before engaging in any episode of care and respected people’s right to decline. They understood the importance of gaining people’s consent prior to supporting them.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and understood its principles. We observed staff offering choices to people and sought their consent before providing them support. People and relatives told us staff were respectful of their choices and decisions. A relative said, “We have been trained respect residents choice. For example residents make choices on what to wear, what they prefer to eat, when they want to go to bed.”

People were informed about their rights around consent and respected how they wished to receive person-centred care and treatment. People, as much as possible, made their own choices and decisions on a day-to-day basis about what they did, what they ate and how they filled their time.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff and leaders completed personalised mental capacity assessments, adhering to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). People were asked for their consent and were involved in day-to-day choices and decisions. This was clearly recorded in care plans. Throughout our visit, we saw staff asked people for permission before engaging in any episode of care and respected people’s right to decline. They understood the importance of gaining people’s consent prior to supporting them.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and understood its principles. We observed staff offering choices to people and sought their consent before providing them support. People and relatives told us staff were respectful of their choices and decisions. A relative said, “We have been trained respect residents choice. For example residents make choices on what to wear, what they prefer to eat, when they want to go to bed.”

People were informed about their rights around consent and respected how they wished to receive person-centred care and treatment. People, as much as possible, made their own choices and decisions on a day-to-day basis about what they did, what they ate and how they filled their time.