Fairfax House

We carried out this assessment on 6 August 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

People were cared for by staff who had been recruited safely and had the skills and knowledge to support them safely and effectively. Staff said they felt well supported by the registered manager and able to approach them with any concerns. One member of staff told us, “[Registered manager] is always in handovers, always talks with us and [they] are straight onto any concerns.”

Risks to people’s safety had been assessed and there was guidance available for staff to know how to provide safe care and support. People were safeguarded from abuse and staff received regular training on safeguarding and whistleblowing.

Medicines had been administered safely and staff had competence checks and medicines training. Health and safety checks were regularly completed, and the environment was clean and well maintained. We did find some window restrictors needed updating. The provider said they had updated some restrictors and would continue the work to update them all. Incidents and accidents were recorded and reviewed by management. If needed further actions were taken to help keep people safe such as referrals to healthcare specialists.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA, however, some best interests’ records required more specific information. For example, not all the options considered were recorded to demonstrate the decision made was the least restrictive. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions, and they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

People had assessments of their needs prior to moving into the service and leaders regularly reviewed them to make sure information was accurate and up to date. Assessments covered a wide range of needs such as eating and drinking and health conditions. People had a choice of meals and were encouraged to drink plenty of fluids. People’s clinical outcomes were monitored such as weight loss, re-positioning and infections. The registered manager told us they were proud that nobody had developed pressure ulcers at the service, despite some people being very frail. There was good teamwork and staff worked well with healthcare professionals. Referrals were timely and leaders had good local knowledge of services available.

The service had an electronic care planning system which enabled staff to have timely and accurate access to care records. People had personalised care plans which were regularly reviewed.

Governance systems were effective in assessing and monitoring quality and safety. Since our last inspection there had been a change of owner, and they had introduced new governance systems. This provided the service with additional oversight as an external company was completing additional quality and safety checks. A recent mock inspection had identified some ways in which the service could improve, and this was being implemented. We did find some statutory notifications which had not been sent to Care Quality Commission (CQC) which the registered manager addressed whilst we were at the service.