Fairfield House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff worked with people to develop a personalised care plan with them which took into consideration their needs and desired outcomes following an assessment. Care plans were more detailed and contained information about people’s preferences, likes and dislikes; and included equality and diversity information. Care plans for people receiving one to one care contained guidance on how to engage and support them throughout the day. People’s views, opinions and choices were interpreted into plans, so they were in control of their own lives. People who could experience dementia related distress had mitigating plans in place. Staff told us the guidance helped them to reassure people and maintain their wellbeing. A healthcare professional told us, “Carers and nurses are very skilled at supporting residents with unpredictable behaviour during times of distress and high care needs.”

People told us they were happy with the way care was provided and the majority of relatives told us they were involved in the reviewing of their loved one’s care plan.One relative told us they were, “Involved in her care planning and have been really impressed with the staff and how they interact.” However, another relative told us, “We have not seen his care plan nor any of their care records, nor had a planned review.” We feedback to the management team and provider who told us they had planned dates for each person to have their care reviewed and were in the process of informing relatives. We were further advised that there were forthcoming relatives meeting where this would be addressed.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The majority of relatives told us they were kept informed of their loved one’s health and wellbeing.

We saw staff providing reassurance when people were becoming anxious, this included distracting the person in order to reduce distress or incidents and to keep people safe. This was carried out in a calm and respectful way in line with the person’s care plan which staff followed.

The management team understood people’s health and care needs and communicated with professionals so people could have access to local health services. Records we reviewed confirmed this, and reflected how staff had contacted external professionals for specific advice about people’s care. Care plans were stored electronically so staff across the service could view them, which helped staff provide continuity of care.

An activities coordinator arranged various activities for people to participate in if they so wished. During the morning, they had arranged a soft ball game for people sitting in the lounge. People appeared to enjoy this activity. In the afternoon a ‘Pets As Therapy’ (PAT) dog visited people living at Fairfield House. Other animals have visited including a Shetland Pony and birds of prey.

The home hosted various singers and entertainers that, we were told, people enjoyed.

Relatives told us there were no restrictions on when they visited their loved one. Staff told us, “Families visit as often as possible and we encourage regular phone and video calls.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We found relevant service information was displayed throughout the communal areas of the service to make it accessible for people and their visitors. Information was presented to people to assist with decision making, for example through the use of pictorial menus, and show plates so people could see what was for lunch and assist them to choose. People told us they felt well informed, and “kept up to date,” with events happening within the service.

People’s preferred method of communication was recorded in their care plans. For those with specific communication needs, staff told us they also observed people’s body language and behaviours to better understand and respond to them.

The provider understood the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard. Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss and, in some circumstances their carers get information in a way they can understand it. It also says that people should get the support they need in relation to communication.

People’s preferred communication style was used so they could take part in reviews of their care. This enabled people to have their views, opinions and feedback captured and acted on. Staff told us they knew how to communicate with people appropriately and respectfully and in accordance with their needs. The provider was able to give out information in formats that were easy to understand such as easy read or large print versions of complaints forms or newsletters.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and helped them understand any changes.

People, relatives and staff were invited to attend regular meetings to ensure they were kept informed of events within the service, however not everyone felt included in events regarding the home. One relative told us, “There is no regular newsletter / email telling us what is going on, so we miss a lot.” Everyone else told us they were involved and included. There was a notice board near the sign in/out log in the entrance hall that included a newsletter and other information shared with visitors. The management team and provider said they would discuss this during the next relatives meeting to ensure everyone was aware.

People knew how to raise a complaint and that it would be taken seriously. We reviewed the provider’s complaints log, and saw complaints which were formally raised, were responded to in a timely way and in accordance with the provider’s complaints policy.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider and management team worked hard to ensure typical barriers faced by people were removed or that mitigating actions were in place. Staff were able to access support from the registered manager and management team out of office hours. They were available on call when needed, for example if there was an incident or emergency.

Staff and management team followed processes to make sure people continued to have fair and equal access to services such as registration with a GP surgery or dentist. They had regular health checks and health reviews. The provider had a clear ethos for the service based on human rights, anti-discrimination and equity principles, and staff and people who used the service understood these.people’s individual equality characteristics such as their gender and religious beliefs.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Fairfield House had been awarded The Gold Standards Framework (GSF) accreditation. This is an evidence-based approach to improving the quality of care for people approaching the end of their life.

End of life or palliative care was provided by the service and an end of life care policy was in place. People’s wishes and preferences for example for their funeral arrangements, were recorded and respected. Their cultural and religious beliefs were also taken into account. Where applicable people had DNACPRs (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) forms in place which had been authorised by their GP.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Fairfield House had been awarded The Gold Standards Framework (GSF) accreditation. This is an evidence-based approach to improving the quality of care for people approaching the end of their life.

End of life or palliative care was provided by the service and an end of life care policy was in place. People’s wishes and preferences for example for their funeral arrangements, were recorded and respected. Their cultural and religious beliefs were also taken into account. Where applicable people had DNACPRs (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) forms in place which had been authorised by their GP.