Archived: Fairways

This is a summary of what we found;

Is the service safe?

We found that the service was safe. When we arrived our identification was checked and we were asked to sign the visitor's book. This showed that the staff took the security of the building and the safety of the people who lived there seriously.

We looked around the property which we found was clean, homely and free from unpleasant odours. It was well maintained and ensured that there was a safe environment for the people who used the service.

We saw records which showed that the health and safety checks were carried out in the service regularly and action was taken if equipment was found to be faulty or unsafe. This included regular visual checks and servicing of equipment such as hoists, the fire alarm panel and wheelchairs. Regular fire safety and legionella tests and checks were carried out, which showed that people were protected from unsafe or poorly maintained equipment.

We saw that the staff were provided with training in safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse, Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which was updated every year. This meant that staff were provided with the information that they needed to ensure that people were safeguarded.

Is the service effective?

People were unable to communicate verbally with us easily, but people showed us by expression and body language that they felt safe and relaxed. During our observations of the care and support staff gave to people we saw that the service was effective in meeting people's needs.

People's care records showed that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. The records were regularly reviewed and updated which meant that staff were provided with up to date information about how people's needs were to be met.

We saw that the service was effective in assessing people's nutritional needs and offered a good and varied menu, while ensuring that health and religious needs and preferences were taken into account.

Is the service caring?

We saw that the staff interacted with people who lived in the service in a caring, respectful and professional manner. People were unable to talk with us, but during the time we spent in the service we saw that people were comfortable, well dressed, looked smart and that staff were committed to caring for the people they supported.

The service provided meaningful activities and pastimes that were suited to people's personality, beliefs and interests. We saw people were supported to go out for a drive in the service's vehicle when they requested it, to participate in a favourite pastime and to uphold the requirements of their religion.

Is the service responsive?

We saw evidence that the service was flexible and made changes as required to ensure people were kept safe. For example, staffing levels were based on the assessed needs of the people. If necessary, because of unforeseen circumstances, staffing levels were increased to ensure people's needs were met. One person, who benefited from one to one staff support, received that support.

People's care records showed that where concerns about their wellbeing had been identified the staff had taken appropriate action to ensure that people were provided with the support they needed. This included seeking support and guidance from health care professionals, including the doctor, the speech and language team and the dietician.

We saw evidence that the service had responded quickly to address a mistake that had been made regarding one person's medication by the prescribing doctor.

The people who used the service, their relatives and other professionals involved with Fairways were given the opportunity to complete annual satisfaction questionnaires. The deputy manager said that the service responded to concerns raised with them.

We saw that people's choices were taken into account and listened to in all aspects of the way the service was run. People who used the service were provided with the opportunity to participate in activities which interested them. One person requested an evening outing which was quickly arranged. Another person, who had requested a different meal to what was offered, was given another alternative when they changed their mind.

Is the service well led?

Annual surveys were given to the people who used the service and their relatives.

The service had an effective quality assurance system in place and the records we examined showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. This ensured that the quality of the service was maintained.

The staff we spoke with told us that the manager was supportive, easy to approach and listened to what they had to say. The deputy manager also told us that they felt supported by the organisation and by their direct line manager. On the day of our inspection the manager was on annual leave. The deputy manager, who facilitated the inspection, had only been in post two weeks. When they informed their area office that our inspection was taking place within half an hour the manager from another of the organisation's services close by arrived to support the deputy manager.

We found that the service had appropriate arrangements in place for obtaining consent to care. There were mental capacity assessments in place for people in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

We saw that people experienced safe care based on detailed care plans that covered all aspects of health and social care needs. There were risk assessments in place that provided guidance to staff to minimise potential risks. We saw that a range of activities were provided that reflected both people's needs and choices.

People using the service were protected from abuse as they were supported by a staff team who had appropriate knowledge and training on safeguarding adults. People we spoke with told us if they had any concerns they would report them to the manager or senior person on duty.

People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff because there were robust recruitment procedures in place. Staff we spoke with confirmed that they were trained and supported during their probation period.

Staff received on-going training and supervision, which provided them with the skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the people they were supporting.

We looked at the schedule of activities available which included horse riding, swimming and visiting a day centre. This meant that people had a choice of activities to pursue.

The care records we looked at were detailed and up to date and clearly identified people's care needs and how the staff would support each person.