CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Field House Residential Home Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection prevention measures, including PPE, testing, cleaning, social distancing and managing outbreaks. They were not always assured that the infection prevention and control policy was up to date.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not assessed as a separate question in this targeted inspection, although inspectors described some management arrangements for infection control and staff support.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Field House Residential Home Limited was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control arrangements, but the infection control policy was not up to date.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 18 December 2020. It looked at infection prevention and control because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
Inspectors were assured about visitor safety, shielding, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and managing outbreaks. People who could not self-isolate were cared for in groups by specific staff.
The home used health monitoring records, separate staff changing rooms and a colour-coded cleaning system. Staff also had monthly support sessions about the effect of the pandemic.
The inspection was not rated. Inspectors were not always assured that the infection prevention and control policy was up to date, although the manager had identified this and planned to address it.
Managing self-isolation
People who could not self-isolate were grouped together and supported by specific staff. Inspectors said this helped manage infection spread while recognising people's individual needs.
“People who were unable to self-isolate were cohorted together and cared for by specific staff members.” from the report
Cleaning arrangements
The home used different cleaning equipment for different floors. Inspectors said this helped prevent infection spreading.
“The home had a colour coded cleaning system for different floors.” from the report
Staff support
Monthly COVID-19 support sessions gave staff an opportunity to discuss how the pandemic had affected them.
“The registered manager met with staff on a monthly basis to carry out a COVID-19 support session.” from the report
Policy was out of date
needs fixingInspectors were not always assured that the infection prevention and control policy covered COVID-19. The manager had identified this and planned to update it.
“We were not always assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
- 01Has the infection prevention and control policy now been updated to cover COVID-19?
- 02How are people supported if they cannot self-isolate?
- 03How are staff allocated to people who are isolating or cohorted together?
- 04How are temperatures, food, fluids and COVID-19 symptoms recorded and reviewed?
- 05How often are cleaning arrangements and PPE use checked?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only, so it did not provide a full rating of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 January 2021 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 2019
Field House Residential Home Limited was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some training records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 19 March 2019. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, a relative, staff, health professionals and the manager. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, staffing, training, complaints, incidents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, good cleanliness, personalised care, respectful staff and access to health professionals.
There were some areas to improve. Training records did not show all staff training, competency checks were not recorded, and the manager wanted to improve understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and accessible information. Inspectors found no concerns at this inspection.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and saw medicines being managed safely and on time.
“People received their medicines on time and in a safe way.” from the report
Kind, respectful care
People were treated with dignity and compassion. Staff supported people's choices, privacy, relationships and individual preferences.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's interests, wishes, routines and support needs. Staff knew how people wanted their care delivered.
“Each person had an individualised care plan which contained details of known preferences and interests alongside support needs.” from the report
Good management
The manager was approachable and carried out quality checks. People, relatives and health professionals spoke positively about the way the home was run.
“The service was consistently managed and well-led.” from the report
Training records
needs fixingRecords did not support all the training staff said they had completed. The manager said training records would be made more robust.
“Staff told us they had received training, but records we reviewed did not support this.” from the report
Competency checks not recorded
needs fixingThe manager carried out checks of core skills, but did not record them. This made it harder to confirm the checks had taken place.
“Competency checks of core skills were undertaken by the registered manager on a regular basis, but these were not recorded.” from the report
Mental Capacity Act knowledge
minorThe manager said they needed to improve their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, although inspectors found staff asked for consent and respected people's decisions.
“The registered manager told us they intended to improve their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act to ensure they met all their responsibilities in relation to it.” from the report
Accessible information
minorThe manager did not have a clear understanding of the Accessible Information Standard and planned to develop more large-print information.
“The registered manager did not have a clear understanding of the Accessible Information Standard, but were keen to further develop large print information for people using the service.” from the report
- 01How have you improved the recording of staff training since the inspection?
- 02How are staff competency checks recorded now?
- 03What training has the manager completed on the Mental Capacity Act?
- 04What large-print or other accessible information is now available?
- 05How are people's end-of-life wishes discussed and recorded if needed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and all five ratings were Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 April 2019 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 Residential Home Limited
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Field House Residential Home Limited →
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Field House Residential Home Limited →
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 August 2014.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Birmingham
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 £950 to £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.