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
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely and recruitment checks were in place, but people and staff reported periods when staffing was insufficient.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed, and staff received training and supervision. Some assessments for people using specialist lifting equipment did not include all the required details.
- Caring?
- Good
- Interactions were generally kind and dignified. Inspectors saw one conversation about a person's care that could be overheard and was not dignified.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences, and people were supported with communication, relationships and activities. The home was working to make sure suitable end of life care plans were in place.
- Well-led?
- Good
- There was a clear management structure, quality checks and an open approach to feedback. This rating was lower than the Outstanding rating at the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but staffing pressures and some incomplete assessments needed attention.
This was a planned inspection in February 2020. One inspector visited the home, first without notice and then with notice. They spoke with people, a relative, staff and a visiting professional, observed care, and checked records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People generally said staff were kind and that they felt safe. Inspectors found person-centred care plans, safe medicines management, suitable activities and systems for checking quality.
There were some shortfalls. People and staff reported that staffing was sometimes not enough, and one person waited 30 minutes for a cup of tea. Some moving and handling assessments lacked important details. One conversation about a person's care could be overheard, and end of life preferences were not always recorded.
Kind and respectful care
People generally experienced kind and dignified support. Staff understood how to protect privacy and promote independence.
“People said they were supported by staff who were kind.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's choices, routines and abilities. Staff supported people to remain involved in their care.
“The provider ensured care planning was person-centred and reflected people's choices.” from the report
Safe medicines and environment
Inspectors found that medicines were managed safely. The home was clean, and staff used protective equipment appropriately.
“Medicines were managed and administered safely.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed and to keep in touch with relatives. The home also arranged trips and community links.
“People were supported to access activities relevant to them.” from the report
Quality checks and openness
The home had audits and checks to identify problems. People and relatives could give feedback and speak with the manager.
“The provider had a programme of quality audits and checks in place.” from the report
Staffing at busy times
needs fixingPeople and staff described periods when there were not enough staff. One person waited 30 minutes for a cup of tea after asking for help.
“Thirty minutes passed and the person was not provided with a cup of tea and left the lounge, returning to their bedroom.” from the report
Incomplete moving and handling assessments
needs fixingSome assessments for specialist lifting equipment did not contain all the information required by the home's template or published guidance. Managers said they would review and amend them.
“Guidance was not always produced in line with published guidance about best practice.” from the report
Privacy and dignity
minorInspectors saw one discussion about a person's care that could be overheard. They said this was not dignified for the person.
“The conversation could be overheard and was not dignified for the person.” from the report
- 01What staffing changes have been made for the period each day when inspectors said staffing needed to increase?
- 02How do you make sure people receive prompt help when staff are supporting someone else?
- 03Have all moving and handling assessments been reviewed so they include the make, type and size of specialist equipment?
- 04How do you protect people's privacy when discussing personal care in shared areas?
- 05Have end of life preferences now been discussed and recorded for every person where appropriate?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; the overall rating and all five question ratings were assessed during this inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 March 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, July 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, effective care and Outstanding leadership, but some call bells were not answered promptly.
Inspectors visited on 1 and 5 June 2017 without telling the home in advance. They spoke with people living there, staff, relatives and a healthcare professional. They observed care and checked care plans, staff records and other documents.
The home remained Good overall, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. People told inspectors they felt safe and cared for. Staff were described as kind, patient and respectful, and inspectors found enough staff to provide care without rushing.
The Well-led rating remained Outstanding. Inspectors found open management, strong links with the local community, good systems for listening to people and a clear approach to learning from incidents and complaints.
Kind and respectful care
Staff built meaningful relationships with people and treated them with patience, kindness and respect.
“People told us staff were always kind and respectful.” from the report
Strong leadership
The management team was open and approachable. Inspectors found clear responsibilities, good staff support and a strong focus on improvement.
“The service continued to be well led.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could take part in varied activities and use the gardens. The home had close relationships with local schools, businesses and community groups.
“There were excellent links with the community which enabled people to keep in touch with friends and continue to take an active part in their community.” from the report
Support for people living with dementia
The home had created a dedicated area and safe garden where people living with dementia could move around more freely and comfortably.
“We now have Orchard View an area dedicated for people living with dementia.” from the report
Learning from feedback
The home collected views through meetings, surveys, complaints and other conversations. Inspectors saw examples of suggestions leading to changes.
“These views were acted upon where possible and practical.” from the report
Call bell response times
needs fixingSome people said they sometimes waited too long for call bells to be answered. The issue had been discussed with staff and response times had been audited.
“However some people said the call bells sometimes took a time to be answered.” from the report
Choice of meals
minorPeople were offered two meals on the day, with alternatives available. One person said they simply left the meal if they did not like it, so ask how individual food preferences are handled.
“However one person said if they did not like the meal they were offered they just, "Pushed it aside.” from the report
- 01How quickly are call bells answered now, and how do you monitor waiting times?
- 02How do you make sure people who dislike the two meal choices receive food they will eat?
- 03How does Orchard View work in practice, and can people move between it and the rest of the home?
- 04How are people's personal interests and wishes used to plan activities and daily routines?
- 05How will you involve relatives in care decisions if a person cannot make a particular decision?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and included observations, discussions and checks of care and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 July 2017 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.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- December 2014GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.