Archived: The Fairway

Updated 10 April 2019

The inspection: We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team: The inspection was carried out by one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.

Service and service type: The Fairway is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Notice of inspection: The inspection visit was unannounced.

What we did: We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about, such as abuse. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We assessed the information we require providers to send us annually that gives us key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection visit, we reviewed five people’s care records to ensure they were reflective of their needs, and other documents relating to the management of the service such as quality audits, people’s feedback, and meeting minutes.

During our inspection visit we spoke with four people living at The Fairway and three visitors or relatives of people who lived there. We also spoke with the registered manager, the area manager, a visiting health professional, two duty managers and one member of care staff.

Some people were not able to tell us what they thought of living at the home; therefore we used different methods to gather experiences of what it was like to live there. For example, we saw how staff supported people throughout the inspection to help us understand peoples’ experiences of living at the home. As part of our observations we also used the Short Observational Tool for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the needs of people who could not talk with us.

Updated 10 April 2019

About the service: The Fairway is a residential care home that provides personal care for up to 45 people. At the time of the inspection 38 lived at the home.

What life is like for people using this service: The property was clean, comfortable, with plenty of room for people to live. The home had three separate floors. On each floor there were separate areas for people to sit, eat and prepare food and drinks. There were areas around the home where people could meet their friends and family, and sit together. The home also had a café where people could sit and enjoy snacks, cake and drinks.

People told us they felt safe and happy and the service was their home. One person told us, “It’s lovely here.”

There were safeguarding systems and processes that sought to protect people from harm. Staff knew the signs of abuse and what to do if they suspected it. There were sufficient staff in place, all of whom had passed safe recruitment procedures to ensure they were suitable for the role. There were systems to monitor people's safety and promote their health and wellbeing, these included risk assessments, risk management analysis tools and care plans. The provider ensured that when things went wrong, incidents and accidents were recorded and lessons were learned.

People's needs were assessed in detail before moving to the home so the provider knew whether they could meet the person's needs. Staff were sufficiently skilled and experienced to fulfil their roles, they received training and were supported through regular supervision. People were prompted to eat and drink healthily and could choose what foods they wanted to eat. People were supported to have choice in their daily lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were treated kindly and compassionately by staff. People and their relatives were supported to express their views and make decisions about the care and treatment they received. Staff respected people's privacy and dignity.

People received personalised care, having their support needs and preferences detailed in their care plans. People were supported to lead fulfilled lives through activities of their choice. The provider had a complaints policy and process in place; people and their relatives told us they would feel comfortable raising complaints. When people were at the end of their life, the provider worked with them to meet their wishes and preferences and to live pain free.

People and staff thought highly of the registered manager and that the service was well managed. Staff knew their roles and understood what was expected of them. The registered manager knew their responsibilities in ensuring people received a safe, high quality service. People and staff were engaged in the service and their opinions were sought. There were quality assurance systems in place to assist the provider to monitor and improve its care and treatment of people. The service had built local community links to benefit the lives of people using the service.

At this inspection we found the evidence supported a rating of ‘Good’ in all areas, and continues to support a rating of ‘Good’ overall. More information in 'Detailed Findings' below.

Rating at last inspection: At our last inspection in May 2016 we rated the service as ‘Good’ overall. (Report published 18 August 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection that was scheduled to take place in line with Care Quality Commission scheduling guidelines for adult social care services.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.