Fairfield House

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The provider had made some recent changes to strengthen the management structure of the service. The new structure was designed to ensure robust leadership to support the registered manager. We found the service had a motivated leadership team who were continuing to drive changes and improvement within the culture of the service. We saw the management team lead by example which created a positive environment and an open and inclusive culture. The majority of staff spoke positively about their roles and told us they felt supported in their work. They also said and knew how to seek advice, guidance and support. One staff told us, “We are encouraged to grow, learn and contribute to the service. Everyday feels meaningful at Fairfield.”

There was an improved culture of effective leadership and teamwork to reinforce the provider’s vision and strategy. Staff and leaders communicated with each other in daily observations, staff meetings, and the availability and approachability of staff at all levels.

A monthly newsletter was produced to highlight events in the home, celebrations of public holidays and the range of activities that people had taken part in. The provider and management team would review how relatives received newsletters to ensure those who wanted to receive one did.

We observed staff were respectful, caring and committed to providing good quality care and treatment to people living in the home. Staff were positive about the management team and complimented them for how supportive they were. The registered manager explained they have worked hard to improve the culture of the service, this included giving staff opportunities to improve the way they communicate with residents. Training and supervision had improved and was more structured, in turn the ethos, values, attitudes and behaviours of care staff had greatly improved.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The registered manager described having an ‘open door’ policy whereby they encouraged people using the service, relatives and staff to speak to them about any issues or concerns as soon as possible. The registered manager, staff and members of the senior leadership team who were on site on the day responded to inspectors in an open and honest way throughout the assessment.

People and relatives spoke positively about the service and the management team. They felt the service was in a better place than it was previously. Relatives commented on the ‘nice, friendly, lovely staff’, the ‘cleanliness’ of the service and the ‘good care.’

Staff told us, “The management are supportive, easy to approach, open to feedback, they listen to concerns and suggestions.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. They proactively encouraged a culture openness and regularly gathered feedback from people living in Fairfield House, their relatives and staff, through meetings and surveys which was used to develop continuously improve the service.

Feedback from staff was additionally gathered through individual supervision with their line managers. Staff said they were confident they could raise concerns with the management team and would be respected for raising concerns. They understood how to raise a whistleblowing concern and were clear about when and how to escalate any concerns. People and relatives told us that the management team were approachable, although not everyone knew the new manager.

Records showed meetings took place with relatives, people and staff to listen to feedback and address issues as they arose. There were processes for staff to follow should they wish to speak with external agencies such as the local authority, the CQC or the police (in situations where they were unable to report concerns about people’s safety to the provider or where concerns were not acted upon by the provider). The provider was open and transparent with people. They apologised to people and their relatives when things had gone wrong in the home or mistakes had been made.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff felt they were treated fairly by the registered manager, and worked well with them as a team. Staff completed training in equality and diversity and had an understanding of the meaning of these terms. Recruitment and disciplinary processes were in place and ensured there was no disadvantage based on staff's specific protected equality characteristics. The provider had processes to ensure an inclusive workplace where staff were treated and supported as individuals.

Staff told us they were happy at the service, felt supported and had the right support in place to enable them to do their jobs well. Staff told us, “We have regular one to one supervision. I am proud to work for Fairfield. It is a very good care home.” In addition, “Fairfield has helped me grow in my role as a healthcare assistant with training given to me.”

Feedback from staff surveys showed overall satisfaction with comments such as “I feel very satisfied with the help and support I receive from my management”, “I enjoy my role in the company”, “I will be able to take steps further up the ladder” and, “I am happy working in Fairfield.”

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

There was a strong commitment to ongoing improvement, the provider developed a senior leadership team which provided consistent support. A new computer system had been implemented for the management of medicines, and aimed to improve oversight. The provider and management team were passionate about continually driving improvement. A healthcare professional told us, “The new management team in place are experienced and appear to be making improvements already which is positive.”

There were systems to monitor the quality of the service people received, which helped to identify if any improvements could be made. These included observations of staff competency, audits and team meetings. Safety processes were also checked so the provider could be assured people remained safe.

The management team was visible and supportive, helping staff to perform and develop their roles. We saw throughout our inspection that they engaged with people and staff to check how they were and to listen to feedback. There were clear arrangements for accountability and a range of audits were completed across all departments to monitor quality and identify areas that could be improved. Monitoring systems were reviewed by the provider and actions were then taken to address any areas for improvement. Clinical audits ensured an oversight of these areas and ongoing clinical meetings and reviews ensured best practice was being followed. For example, pressure sores, wounds and other injuries were recorded; and treatment was planned, monitored and reviewed using best practice guidelines.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

They actively sought feedback from people and their families about the quality of resident and family meetings. Staff and managers told us about positive working relationships with health and social care professionals, we saw referrals were made appropriately and professional advice was updated in people’s care records for staff to follow. Collaboration with external stakeholders included healthcare professionals, local authority social work and safeguarding teams, health care professionals gave positive feedback, and we saw that meetings and reviews had been held to discuss people’s needs and plan how best to meet them.

The management team said Fairfield House is an integral part of the local community and hosted an annual fete, people were invited to attend celebrations in the village hall which is next to Fairfield House. The service has links with a local charity that provides disabled access to a boat that takes people on trips out of Weymouth harbour.A local primary and nursery school are involved in activities including art and choir visits.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

We observed evidence of strong leadership with clear plans around how the service wished to continue to improve and embed ongoing changes. There were processes in place to ensure that learning happened when things went wrong. Root cause analyses were undertaken and the findings were widely shared with staff to encourage reflection and learning, as well as to adapt working practice to ensure issues were not repeated. A healthcare professional told us, “Since the new leadership/management team have been in place they have been incredibly open and receptive when I have identified issues, have investigated and put in place measures to prevent a recurrence.”

Incidents and accidents were monitored and analysed for themes and trends. For example, we saw action taken such as use of a sensor mat to alert staff which has reduced amount of unwitnessed falls.

Staff told us the management team reviewed incidents and events and shared learning with them for improvement and development. The provider supported staff to develop their skills and encouraged them to become ‘champions’ in an area of special interest to them, where they would be supported to develop their ideas to improve and innovate in that area.