Archived: Field House Rest Home

Updated 29 July 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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.

This unannounced inspection took place on 8 May 2015. The inspection team comprised of three inspectors.

During the inspection, we spoke with 11 people who lived at the home and five relatives. We spoke with five staff and the registered manager. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We looked at two records about people’s care, complaint files, falls and incidents reports, people’s medicines records, infection control audits, care plan audits and staff handover notes.

Updated 29 July 2015

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 8 May 2015.

Field House is registered provide accommodation and personal care for a maximum of 54. There were 47 people living at home on the day of the inspection. There was a registered manager in place. 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

People told us that they felt safe and well cared for with enough staff to meet their needs. Staff were able to tell us about how they kept people safe. During our inspection we observed staff were available to meet people’s care and social needs.

People received their medicines as prescribed and at the correct time. Systems and processes were in place so medicines were stored and able to be identified correctly. People who required medicines as needed received them when required.

People told us they liked the staff and felt they knew how to look after them. Staff were provided with training which they felt reflected the needs of people who lived at the home. However, the registered manager had not consistently applied the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Assessments of people’s capacity to consent and records of decisions had not been completed in their best interests. The provider could not show how people gave their consent to care and treatment or how they made decisions in the person’s best interests. Therefore, people had decisions made on their behalf that may not have been in their best interest.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to keep them healthy. We found that people’s health care needs were assessed, and care planned and delivered to meet those needs. People had access to other healthcare professionals that provided treatment, advice and guidance to support their health needs although these had not always been followed.

People told us and we saw that their privacy and dignity were respected and staff were kind to them. Staff had been understanding and supportive of people’s choice and decisions. People had been involved in the planning of their care. Relatives told us they were involved in their family members care and were asked for their opinions and input.

People told us they got to do things they liked during the day and said that they did go out occasionally. People we spoke with told us they did not have any concerns but knew to approach the manager if they were not happy with their care.

The provider and registered manager made regular checks to monitor the quality of the care that people received and look at where improvements may be needed. However, we found that improvements were needed to ensure that the audits helped the provider to take action where they had identified areas for improvement.