CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Field House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was following safe infection prevention and control procedures. They found arrangements for PPE, testing, cleaning, visitors, social distancing, admissions and managing possible outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control at the home.
Inspectors visited the home on 30 October 2020. The visit was announced and formed part of a national review of infection prevention and control in care homes during the coronavirus pandemic.
The home was supporting 18 people, with capacity for 20. Inspectors found good practice in handwashing, personal protective equipment, cleaning, visitor safety, testing, social distancing and managing infection risks.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report gives an assurance about infection control, but it does not provide a full rating of the home or rate all five areas of care.
Staff infection control training
Staff had infection control training and their practice was checked against the provider's policy and current guidance.
“Staff had received infection control training and competency checks were undertaken to ensure staff compliance with the provider's infection control policy and current guidance.” from the report
Cleaning and environment
The home had removed clutter and increased cleaning of frequently touched areas to reduce infection risks.
“The environment had been decluttered to promote effective infection control. Additional cleaning was undertaken including main touch points such as door handles and light switches to prevent the transmission of infection.” from the report
Safer visits
Visitors had temperature checks, handwashing and PPE on arrival. Garden visits were organised with cleaning between visits.
“On arrival at the home, visitors had their temperatures taken, were observed washing their hands and were provided with PPE to ensure visits were safe.” from the report
Maintaining family contact
People were supported to keep in touch with relatives and friends using video calls, telephone calls and garden visits.
“People were supported to maintain contact with their family and friends through the use of video and telephone calls.” from the report
Planning for individual risks
COVID-19 risk assessments were in place for people and staff. The home took steps to reduce risks for those considered more vulnerable.
“Staff and people using the service had COVID-19 risk assessments in place to identify specific risks.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently checked and supported to use handwashing and PPE safely?
- 02How often are frequently touched areas such as door handles and light switches cleaned?
- 03How are people's individual COVID-19 risks and visiting wishes recorded and reviewed?
- 04How would the home manage an infection outbreak, and how would relatives be informed?
- 05How does the home support contact with family and friends if visits are restricted?
This was an announced thematic inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the report does not assess the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 November 2020 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, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, although the caring rating fell from Outstanding to Good.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 16 December 2019. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They also checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from harm, supported by trained staff and treated with kindness and respect.
People had choices about their care, meals and activities. Staff knew people well, supported access to healthcare and helped people maintain relationships and interests. The home had systems for complaints, incidents and improving care.
The previous overall rating was Good, published in July 2017. The caring rating had been Outstanding but was now Good. The report does not mention any breaches, enforcement action or special measures.
Safe care
Risks were assessed and managed, and staff knew how to protect people from harm. Inspectors also found enough staff and safe systems for medicines and infection control.
“People's risks were managed in a safe way and staff knew how to protect people from the risk of harm and abuse.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People consistently said staff treated them well and respected their dignity. Inspectors saw staff responding sensitively to people's worries and personal wishes.
“All those we spoke with consistently told us they were treated well and with respect by a staff team who respected their dignity.” from the report
Personalised choices
People were involved in decisions about their care, food and activities. Staff knew people's histories, preferences and interests and adapted support around them.
“People were supported by staff members who knew and respected them as individuals and assisted them to continue leading the life they wanted.” from the report
Good management
The management team was approachable and used checks, meetings and feedback to monitor the service and make improvements.
“The provider and management team had effective quality monitoring systems.” from the report
Caring rating had fallen
minorAlthough inspectors still found kind and respectful care, the caring rating had fallen from Outstanding at the previous inspection to Good.
“At the last inspection this key question was rated as 'Outstanding.' At this inspection this key question has now deteriorated to 'Good.'” from the report
Care plan update in progress
minorOne person's needs had changed significantly and their care plan was still being updated to record those changes when inspectors visited.
“At this inspection we saw one person's needs had changed significantly. The staff members were in the process up updating their care plan to record these changes.” from the report
- 01Why did the caring rating fall from Outstanding to Good, and what has been done since the inspection?
- 02How quickly are care plans updated when a person's needs or health changes?
- 03How are medicines checked, and how are any medicines errors investigated and followed up?
- 04What activities are available for someone with my relative's interests, and can they receive one-to-one support?
- 05How are residents and relatives involved in decisions about meals, routines and activities?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 January 2020 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
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 February 2011.
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
57 live-in carers within about an hour of Shropshire
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 £960 to £1,230 a week. 52 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
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.