CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Field View
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe, staffing levels met people’s needs, and medicines were stored and given correctly. Inspectors noted very hot exposed radiators in communal corridors and some medicine competency checks that were not up to date.
- Effective?
- Good
- People’s physical, mental, social and other needs were assessed and care plans were regularly reviewed. Staff were trained and supported people with food, communication, consent and access to healthcare.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff treating people with respect, protecting their privacy and dignity, and encouraging independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People were involved in their care and could make choices about their routines, activities and interests. Their communication needs, complaints and end-of-life wishes were recorded and supported.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals were positive about the management. The provider had systems to monitor care quality, respond to issues and work with other services.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with minor issues about hot radiators and medicines competency checks.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 11 December 2019. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with five people, one relative, six staff members and two healthcare professionals. They also reviewed care, medicine, staff and management records.
The inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine storage, clean surroundings and good support with healthcare, food and personal care. People said staff were kind, respectful and responsive. Inspectors also saw people being involved in decisions and supported to remain independent.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found two minor issues. Some exposed communal radiators were very hot, and some staff medicine competency checks were not up to date. The provider said these issues would be addressed immediately.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed compassionate care that protected dignity and privacy.
“Staff were compassionate and respectful to people. They upheld their dignity and privacy and supported their independence.” from the report
Responsive staffing
People said staff responded promptly when they needed help. Inspectors saw staff responding quickly to requests, including requests for personal care.
“We observed staff promptly responding to people's requests for assistance, for example with personal care.” from the report
Good healthcare support
Staff noticed changes in people’s health and worked with healthcare professionals. Records showed access to GPs, district nurses and chiropodists.
“Staff contacted the GP to report a person was in a lot of pain and the GP visited the same day to review this.” from the report
People’s choices respected
People were involved in care decisions and supported to follow their routines, interests and spiritual preferences.
“People told us they were involved in the planning of their care and that their needs and preferences were met.” from the report
Active quality monitoring
The provider and home manager used audits, staff feedback and meetings to monitor and improve care.
“Good governance processes were in place to monitor and improve the quality of care provided.” from the report
Hot communal radiators
needs fixingRadiator covers had been fitted in most people’s rooms, but exposed radiators in communal corridors were very hot to touch. The provider agreed to remedy this immediately.
“However, they had not taken the same action for exposed radiators in communal corridors which we found were very hot to the touch.” from the report
Medicine competency checks
needs fixingSome staff had not had their medicine administration competency assessed within the previous 12 months. The provider immediately put a system in place to address this.
“However, some staff's competency to do this safely had not been assessed within the last 12 months in line with best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01Have all the exposed communal radiators now been covered or otherwise made safe?
- 02Have all staff who administer medicines had their competency assessed within the required timescale?
- 03How are you checking that medicine records remain accurate and complete?
- 04How would you support my relative’s particular communication needs, interests and daily choices?
- 05How would you record and follow my relative’s wishes about end-of-life care?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and the care provided; the previous inspection in June 2017 was also rated Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 December 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.
What inspectors found, June 2017
Field View is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with some issues in medicines, recruitment records and activities.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 10 May 2017. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with 10 people using the service, two relatives, staff and a visiting health professional. They also checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, rotas and quality records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training, respectful care and good access to health professionals. People and relatives were positive about the food, staff and support.
The home had improved in all areas criticised at the previous inspection in February 2016. Earlier concerns included risk records, staffing, consent and management oversight. Inspectors found those improvements had been made, although they noted a few smaller issues during this visit.
Enough familiar staff
Inspectors found enough staff during the day and night. The home was fully staffed, did not use agency staff and most staff had worked there for many years.
“There were enough skilled and experienced staff to meet people's individual needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw patience, kindness and respect, including staff asking permission before providing care.
“Feedback from people who used the service and relatives was positive about the kindness and patience of the staff.” from the report
Good health support
People were referred to health professionals when needed. Inspectors saw evidence of good joint working with district nurses and other services.
“People were promptly supported to access healthcare professionals when they needed to.” from the report
Personalised care and choice
Care plans described people's histories, preferences and wishes. People and relatives helped to plan and review care, and people were supported to follow hobbies and community links.
“People who used the service, or their relatives, had been involved in developing their care plans and plans reflected how people wished to receive their care and support.” from the report
Improved management
The home had acted on the previous inspection's concerns. It had introduced new checks, including a staffing tool and systems for recording informal complaints and improvements.
“Improvements were evident in all areas that had previously been of concern.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingThree recently opened liquid medicines had not been dated. Inspectors also found one stocktaking error involving PRN paracetamol, although other medicines checked matched the records.
“We also found that three open liquid medicines had not been dated on the day they had been opened.” from the report
Partially blocked stairway
needs fixingA stairway in an area not used by residents was partly blocked. This was reported to the manager, who said it would be dealt with as a priority.
“We did note an area not used by people who used the service, which had a partially blocked stairway” from the report
Recruitment reference
minorOne staff member's most recent employer had not been used as a reference. The manager said they had tried to contact that employer, but this attempt had not been recorded.
“We noted that one person's most recent employer had not been used as a reference.” from the report
Limited activity range
minorPeople were happy with the activities available, but inspectors said the home did not show a strong commitment to providing a wide variety of activities.
“Although the service did not demonstrate a huge commitment to providing a variety of activities, people we spoke with were very happy with the selection provided.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure all opened liquid medicines are dated and stock records are correct?
- 02Has the partially blocked stairway been cleared, and how do you check areas used in an emergency?
- 03How do you record and follow up recruitment references when a previous employer cannot be contacted?
- 04What activities are currently available, and how do you make sure they match each person's interests?
- 05How have you kept the improvements from the previous inspection under review?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of the overall quality and safety of the home, covering all five CQC questions and reviewing the improvements required after the February 2016 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 June 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 View
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 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.