Archived: The Fairway

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.

There was a manager in post who had registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff received training in how to safeguard people from abuse and knew how to report any concerns that arose both internally and externally. Relatives and health care professionals told us that people were kept safe at the home and when out and about in the community.

Safe and effective recruitment practices were followed and there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff available at all times to meet people’s individual care and support needs. Information from incidents was used to good effect in reducing identified risks and keeping people safe.

There were effective plans and guidance in place to help staff deal with unforeseen events and emergencies. The environment and equipment used were regularly checked and well maintained.

People were helped to take their medicines safely by trained staff who had their competences assessed and checked in the workplace. Potential risks to people’s health and well-being were identified, reviewed and managed effectively.

Relatives and health care professionals were positive about the skills, experience and abilities of staff who worked at the home. Staff received training and refresher updates relevant to their roles and the needs of the people they supported.

Staff regularly worked with senior colleagues and had opportunities to discuss any concerns they had, issues about their personal development and performance and how the home operated. However, the registered manager acknowledged that formal ‘one to one’ supervisions and annual appraisals were not as up to date or complete as they could be in all cases.

People were supported to maintain good physical and mental health and well-being. They had access to health and social care professionals when necessary and were supported to eat a healthy balanced diet that met their individual needs.

We saw that staff obtained people’s consent and agreement before providing personal care and support, which they did in a kind and patient way.

Arrangements were in hand to ensure that people were supported by advocacy services where appropriate to help people them access independent advice or guidance. People and their relatives were involved in the planning and reviews of care wherever possible.

We saw that staff had developed positive and caring relationships with the people they cared for. The confidentiality of information held about people’s medical and personal histories had been securely maintained throughout the home.

Care was provided in a way that promoted people’s dignity and respected their privacy. People received personalised care and support that met their individual needs and took account of their preferences. Staff knew the people they looked after very well and were knowledgeable about their background histories, preferences, routines and personal circumstances.

People were supported to pursue social interests, hobbies and meaningful activities relevant to their needs, both at the home and in the local community. Relatives told us that staff listened to them and responded to any concerns they had in a prompt and positive way. Complaints were recorded and investigated thoroughly by the registered manager with learning outcomes used to make improvements where necessary.

Relatives, staff and health care professionals were very positive and complimentary about the management team and how the home was run. Appropriate steps were taken to monitor the quality of services provided, reduce potential risks and drive continuous improvement in consultation with staff and people who lived at the home.

We saw that staff were knowledgeable about people's needs and promoted their independence. When we talked with people they told us that the staff had a good understanding and awareness of their care needs and preferences. We saw that care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed and updated. One person told us: "The manager visits me when they are on duty and talk to me about my care and support. Another person said "the staff are good on the whole; you can have a laugh and joke with them."

We saw that medicines were stored, administered and disposed of correctly.

People who used the service told us they were aware of how to make a complaint and who to make it to. We reviewed a recent complaint and saw that it was dealt with in line with the provider's complaints policy and procedure.

We saw that care plans reflected people's needs and wishes and were regularly updated. People told us that they liked the food and that the menu choices were decided each day.

We observed good interaction between people who use the service and the staff who were on duty on the day of our visit. Staff were observed supporting people in a calm manner and using their preferred names to address them.

People told us that staff were polite and helpful and sought their consent prior to undertaking tasks. People we spoke with all confirmed that they and their families had been continually involved in their care plan and that their opinion had been taken into account and where possible, acted on.