Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Field House Residential Care Home for the Elderly

Goodpublished 22 April 2026, 5 months ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, March 2023

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found serious gaps in fire safety and quality checks, although no one had been harmed.

This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 25 January 2023. One inspector spoke with people and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records. The inspection only looked at Safe and Well-led.

The home was not always safe. Inspectors found missing fire safety checks, no safe evacuation method for some people on the ground floor, and delays in fitting devices to control hot water temperatures. No one had been harmed, but these issues could have put people at risk.

The home was also not well-led because its checks did not reliably find or fix problems. The provider and manager acted during the inspection, including arranging fire safety support and fitting thermostatic valves in occupied bedrooms.

The overall rating remained Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. The other three areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used in calculating the overall rating.

What inspectors praised
  • People felt safe

    People told inspectors they felt safe and knew who to speak to if they had concerns. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse.

    “People told us that they felt safe and that if they had any concerns they would talk to the staff or manager about it.” from the report
  • Staffing and recruitment

    Inspectors found that recruitment checks had been completed. People and staff said there were usually enough staff to meet people's needs promptly.

    “Through our observations and people living at the service told us that they thought there were sufficient staff on duty to meet their needs in a timely manner.” from the report
  • Medicines

    Medicines were given by trained staff, recorded properly and stored safely. Prescribers' instructions were available and followed.

    “People received safe support with their medicines provided by trained staff.” from the report
  • Infection control

    Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements for preventing and managing infections, including safe use of protective equipment.

    “We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
  • Positive views of new management

    People and staff spoke positively about the new manager, teamwork and recent changes. Meetings and surveys were being used to gather views.

    “All of the staff spoken to said they found the manager approachable and spoke positively about teamwork and the recent improvements.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Fire safety

    serious

    There were no records of recent fire drills, fire point or emergency lighting tests, or fire door checks. Some people on the ground floor could not be safely evacuated by the available arrangements.

    “There were no means of safely evacuating people from the ground floor who could not walk down the stairs in the event of a fire.” from the report
  • Hot water safety

    serious

    Audits had identified that some bedrooms did not have thermostatic valves, but the valves were not fitted promptly. The provider acted during the inspection to fit them in occupied bedrooms.

    “Audits had identified that not all bedrooms had thermostatic valves fitted. However, action had not been taken in a timely manner to fit them.” from the report
  • Quality checks did not work reliably

    serious

    Some audits were incomplete or inaccurate, and action plans were not always made. This meant important safety improvements were missed.

    “Although tasks were ticked as completed this was not always accurate and meant areas for improvement were not always identified.” from the report
  • Incident records

    minor

    The home was reviewing accidents and incidents, but forms did not always clearly record the action taken. The report says records were being improved.

    “Although people's records showed that appropriate action had been taken this was not always clearly recorded on the accident forms.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What fire drills, fire door checks, fire point checks and emergency lighting tests have been completed since the inspection?
  2. 02How would you safely evacuate a resident on the ground floor who cannot use the stairs?
  3. 03Have thermostatic valves now been fitted in every bedroom, and how are hot water temperatures checked?
  4. 04How do you check that audits are accurate and that identified actions are completed on time?
  5. 05What changes have been made since the last inspection, and what evidence can you show that they are working?

This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 March 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, May 2022

Rated Requires Improvement; safety, activities and management needed improvement, but the home was no longer in Special Measures.

This was an unannounced follow-up inspection. Inspectors visited the home, spoke with people, staff, relatives and a social worker, and reviewed nine people's care records, staff files and management records.

The home had improved since its previous Inadequate rating. Staffing, safeguarding, caring, medicines, food and access to healthcare were better. Inspectors found kind interactions and prompt responses to call bells.

However, some safety risks had not been properly assessed or managed. Infection control procedures were not always followed, some staff training was incomplete, and care plans were not always up to date. People were also often unoccupied, with activities needing further development.

The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Effective and Caring were rated Good. The home remained in breach of Regulations 12 and 17, but it was no longer Inadequate or in Special Measures.

What inspectors praised
  • Improved staffing

    Inspectors found enough staff with the skills and knowledge to meet people's assessed needs. Call bells were answered promptly.

    “Call bells were answered promptly, and staff spent time with people and provided the care and support they needed.” from the report
  • Kind and respectful care

    Staff were observed treating people with compassion and respecting their privacy and dignity. Relatives said the attitude and standard of care had improved.

    “Staff treated people with compassion and kindness and respected their privacy and dignity.” from the report
  • Food and drink support

    Staff supported people to eat and drink, offered choices and adapted food and drinks where needed. They referred people to health professionals when there were concerns.

    “Staff supported people to have enough to eat and drink. Staff encouraged people to eat and drink independently.” from the report
  • Safeguarding improved

    Staff knew how to report abuse or other concerns. The management team had made appropriate safeguarding referrals and shared information with relatives when suitable.

    “The management team had appropriately referred concerns to the local authority safeguarding team.” from the report
  • Medicines managed properly

    Medicines were stored, recorded and disposed of properly. Staff had medicines training and competency checks.

    “The providers medicines systems ensured people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Safety risks were missed

    serious

    Some people's risks were not assessed or updated. Inspectors also saw bedrail bumpers and a sensor mat not used as required, and found items stored in a stairwell that affected fire safety.

    “The provider had failed to ensure that risks to people's health safety and well-being were reduced where possible.” from the report
  • Infection control shortfalls

    serious

    Inspectors saw problems with mask use, PPE arrangements and COVID-19 testing checks. Nine of 44 staff had not completed infection prevention and control training.

    “The provider had failed to ensure that infection prevention and control guidelines were followed by all staff.” from the report
  • Incomplete staff training

    needs fixing

    Fourteen of 44 staff had not completed all mandatory training, including eight staff who had worked at the home for more than three months. The report said this increased the risk of unsafe or ineffective care.

    “Records showed 14 of the 44 staff had not completed all the training.” from the report
  • Care plans were not always current

    needs fixing

    Some care plans did not reflect changes in people's needs, and one care worker said they had not read any full care plan after three months at the home.

    “One care staff member said they had worked at the home for three months but had not read anyone's care plan.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What checks now make sure every person's risk assessments are updated when their needs change?
  2. 02How do you ensure all staff complete infection prevention and control and other mandatory training before providing care?
  3. 03How do you check that staff read and follow each person's full care plan?
  4. 04What has changed to keep fire escape routes clear and to ensure sensor mats, bedrails and bumpers are used as required?
  5. 05What regular activities are now provided, including when the activity co-ordinator is away?

This was an unannounced follow-up inspection focused on previous Warning Notice actions and infection prevention and control under Safe; the inspection activity ran from 9 March to 1 April 2022, with a visit on 9 March. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 May 2022 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Field House Residential Care Home for the Elderly

6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.

  1. March 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Field House Residential Care Home for the Elderly →

  2. May 2022Requires improvementup from Inadequate
    Safe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Field House Residential Care Home for the Elderly →

  3. August 2021Inadequate
    Safe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. December 2020Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. July 2017Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
  6. May 2016Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
  7. September 2015Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
  8. July 2019

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 July 2019.

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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

39 live-in carers within about an hour of Peterborough

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 £980 to £1,370 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.

“I honestly feel lucky to have found her and have already booked her for another visit.”
Clare R., about Janepher N.
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
Scot H., about Magdalena B.
See live-in carers near PeterboroughProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.