The Fairways

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care plans were not always personalised with accurate and up to date information. We found in some care plans, staff referred to the incorrect gender, incorrect spelling of names and in 1 instance an incorrect date of birth. People’s needs had not always been assessed so that guidance could be recorded for staff. As the service used agency staff this was a concern as they were more reliant on care plan information to know and understand people’s needs.

The service had a ‘resident of the day’ system. The purpose of this system was for people to ‘be at the heart of their care’. It also aimed to make sure care was person-centred and up to date. We found this system was not being consistently used and records demonstrated reviewing care plans had not always been included in the process.

We found 1 person’s name had been spelt incorrectly on the door of their room. The person told us their partner had corrected the spelling error on their behalf. Leaders and staff had not noticed this. This person had been ‘resident of the day’ on 2 occasions prior to our site visit. This meant staff recorded they had visited the person’s room and checked all was well. We raised this with the acting home manager who took action to make sure the person’s name was spelt correctly.

Following our site visit, the provider told us they had completed an audit of care records and identified actions to make improvements.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

We found examples of people moving into the service without a full assessment of needs. This meant care plans were not detailed, and leaders and staff did not have all the information needed to make sure people had continuity with their care. People and relatives said there were a lot of changes with regards to staffing. This meant people were having care from different staff which also did not help with continuity. One person said, “There are a lot of changes of staff. I would prefer it if I was cared for by the same staff. There is a new face every week.” One relative told us, “Because there is such a big turnover of staff and a lot of agency use, there is no continuity or understanding of my [relative’s] care and needs. We muddle through day by day explaining to new people what their routine is.”

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

People’s communication needs were assessed and there was guidance in people’s care plans for staff to know how to communicate with people effectively. The provider could supply people with information in a range of formats. People had a service user guide in their rooms when they moved into the service which outlined key information about the service.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Some ‘resident’ meetings had been held but not consistently. For example, in February 2026 it was recorded people could not attend a meeting. However, it was not clear if another time or date was considered. One person said, “I don’t know anything about a resident meeting.”

People had not been formally told about changes in management and said they did not know who to go to with any concerns. One person said, “I don’t know who the manager is. I did not know there was a registered manager. If I had a concern I would speak to the person who does the medication.”

New flooring was due to be arranged. Leaders told us that relatives had been consulted, and relatives had asked for replacement carpet. We spoke to people who told us they had not been asked about changes to the home that they would like to see.

Some relative’s meetings had been organised. Actions had been recorded following feedback such as a poor laundry service, low staff numbers, needing more cups and wanting more fresh fruit around the service. However, not all actions were being completed. For example, in January 2026 we found staff were raising in their meetings the service needed more cups for people to drink from. This was 2 months after the relatives meeting. People and relatives also shared feedback with us about issues with the laundry. One person said, “The laundry is a concern, clothes don’t come back, even though they are labelled.” We also observed a ‘lost property’ rail of clothes in the reception of the service which was not dignified.

Actions identified were not always completed which did not give people, relatives and staff confidence their feedback was valued.

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

The service promoted equitable access to care and support by offering accommodation options that reflected people's individual circumstances and relationships. This included a double bedroom with an adjoining guest room, enabling couples to remain together where this was their preference and care needs could be met safely. Leaders recognised the importance of maintaining significant relationships and reducing barriers that can arise when one partner required residential care. This flexibility helped people maintain family connections, emotional wellbeing and continuity in their relationships during what can often be a challenging transition into care. People and their loved ones benefited from greater choice around how they lived and maintained meaningful relationships, supporting positive experiences and outcomes

The environment was purpose built and people had their own rooms. However, the environment was in need of updating, decorating and improving.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

People and relatives said they did not think all staff had the dementia training needed to support people with dementia. Comments included, “Too much reliance on agency staff that have limited experience or understanding of residents’ needs” and “I don’t think the carers are as well trained in how to treat dementia patients. I’d stress though that I like the staff and my [relative] is happy. Just need more permanent staff and extra training.”

Due to the lack of staffing numbers, we observed people with dementia not always having the engagement and stimulation they might need. We found people were walking around the environment with little to do which at times resulted in distress or altercations with others. People did not have detailed behaviour support plans which meant staff did not have the guidance they needed to support anxiety or distress. We observed people were left at times without any interactions with others. For example, we sat with a person with dementia in a communal room for 40 minutes. No staff came to check on them or engage with them during this period of observation. Senior care staff were regularly busy administering medicines at various times during their shifts. This left them little time to role model good dementia care and support.

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.

There was no end-of-life care taking place at the time of our inspection. However, staff had provided this type of care many times. Staff were provided with training on end-of-life care and knew who to contact for additional support.

People were asked about their wishes for future care and who they wanted to be involved. Where people had wanted to share this information, it was recorded in their care plans.