CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Field House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found people were safeguarded, risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, infection controls were effective and staffing arrangements were safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used in the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used in the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used in the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found stable management, regular audits, action plans and a positive culture. This rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe care and stronger management, but some care records still had gaps.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 25 April 2023. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led, including infection control. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files, safety checks and audits.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe was Good and Well-led was Good. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, infection controls were in place and staffing arrangements were considered safe.
Management had improved since the previous inspection. The home had introduced electronic medicines and care records systems, and audits and action plans were being used. However, two people's records had gaps in food and fluid charts or repositioning charts, and the manager was asked to continue improving record keeping.
Only Safe and Well-led were inspected during this visit. The ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried over from the previous inspection.
Safe care systems
The home had risk assessments and plans covering areas such as mobility, swallowing, nutrition, hydration and skin care. Accidents and incidents were investigated and used to identify lessons.
“People's care records contained risk assessments and associated plans relating to skin care, mobility, moving and handling, swallowing, malnutrition and dehydration.” from the report
Safer medicines management
A previous practice of preparing medicines for people to take later had stopped. An electronic medicines system was now in use, with trained nurses administering medicines.
“At the last inspection, we found pre potted medicines for some people 'to take later.' We found this practice was no longer happening.” from the report
Improved leadership
Inspectors found stronger oversight, regular audits and clear action plans. The Well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
The home used a dependency tool to help calculate staffing needs. Inspectors found safe recruitment checks, and agency staff use was described as minimal.
“The provider had worked hard to recruit staff and the use of agency staff was now minimal.” from the report
Gaps in care records
needs fixingTwo people's records had missing information in food and fluid charts or repositioning charts. Inspectors found no evidence of harm, but told the manager and provider that further improvement was needed.
“Whilst looking at people's care records, we found two people's care records contained gaps.” from the report
Signing for creams
minorStaff did not always sign the records after applying prescribed creams. The manager was reminding staff about the importance of completing these records.
“The registered manager told us they were working with the staff to remind them the importance of signing for creams.” from the report
Relative meetings
minorRegular meetings for relatives had not taken place since before the COVID-19 pandemic. The manager said they planned to restart them.
“Relative meetings had not taken place since before the COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
- 01How are you checking that food and fluid charts and repositioning charts are completed at the time care is given?
- 02How do you check that staff sign after applying prescribed creams?
- 03When will meetings for relatives restart, and how can families raise concerns or give feedback before then?
- 04How do you use the dependency tool to decide staffing levels on each shift, including at night?
- 05What changes have been made through the electronic medicines and care records systems?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 June 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, April 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, but the home was Requires Improvement for being well-led.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 13 and 14 March 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, visitors and staff. They observed care, medicines and meals, and checked care records, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, effective, caring and responsive care were all rated Good. Inspectors found improvements since the previous inspection, including better medicines management and more accurate care records.
The well-led rating remained Requires Improvement. The home had checks and audits, but these did not always identify problems with medicines records, risk information and care records. The registered manager took prompt action on issues found during the inspection.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw people being treated with kindness and respect. Staff supported privacy and dignity and had developed positive relationships with people.
“Staff were kind and caring. We found people were being treated with dignity and respect and people's privacy was maintained.” from the report
Improved safety
The home had improved medicines management, safeguarding arrangements, staffing and accident monitoring since the previous inspection.
“People were protected from abuse because staff had received training and knew how to identify and act on concerns.” from the report
Individual care planning
Care plans included people's physical, mental, emotional and social needs, as well as their choices and preferences.
“Electronic care plans were designed to reflect individual needs, choices and preferences.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People were offered a varied programme of activities inside and outside the home. Visitors were welcomed and families were involved in important decisions.
“A range of activities were offered and provided people with entertainment both in and out of the home.” from the report
Medicines records and procedures
needs fixingSome medicines carried over from earlier months were not recorded accurately. Staff had also left medicines for some people to take later without the required risk assessments, although this practice was stopped after the inspection.
“Amounts of prescribed medicines carried over from previous months were not always recorded.” from the report
Quality checks did not find all problems
needs fixingThe home's audits did not consistently identify shortfalls in medicines management, care records and risk plans. This was the reason the well-led rating remained Requires Improvement.
“Improvements were needed to make sure systems identified shortfalls, for example, in medicines management and record keeping.” from the report
Gaps in repositioning records
needs fixingTwo people at increased risk of pressure ulcers needed changes of position every two hours. Their records contained gaps showing when these changes had taken place.
“Records showed gaps in the recording of these positional changes which we brought to the attention of the Deputy Manager at the time.” from the report
Mixed feedback about food
minorSome people praised the food, while another said meals were often overcooked and that their complaint had not led to enough change. The home confirmed that improvements were being made.
“The meals are constantly overcooked, the cabbage is usually soggy and the meat hurts my teeth.” from the report
- 01How are medicines now checked, including medicines carried over from previous months and medicines that people take when required?
- 02How do you make sure quality audits identify problems with medicines, care records and risk assessments before they affect people?
- 03How are repositioning checks recorded for people at risk of pressure ulcers, and how are missed checks followed up?
- 04What changes were made to the food after the reported complaints, and how do people and relatives give feedback now?
- 05How do staff make sure drinks and other daily care are offered according to each person's preferences?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led; the previous inspection was on 15 and 16 February 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 April 2018 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Field House
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Bristol, City of
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,300 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She became a good friend to my mother in law, chatting with her, dancing with her, knitting with her and the list goes on”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.