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
- Inspectors found safe water temperatures, suitable risk assessments, enough staff and systems for safe medicines administration. The home was clean and incidents were reviewed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had detailed assessments and care plans, staff received induction and training, and healthcare was followed up. Inspectors noted that some records, such as food and drink monitoring, could be more useful if portion sizes were recorded.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions and staff used their knowledge of individual communication, preferences and interests.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support and activities were planned around individual preferences, communication needs and choices. Inspectors found that complaints were acted on, but not always recorded in the complaints log.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management changes and audits had improved oversight, and required notifications were being sent to CQC. Inspectors said the new systems needed time to become consistent.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Field View was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some records and communication still needing improvement.
The inspection was carried out in stages. Inspectors visited the office on 08 May 2019 and the home on 15 May 2019. Inspection activity ended on 01 July 2019. They reviewed care records, medicines, staff training, recruitment, incidents, complaints and quality checks. They met the three people living there, spoke with a relative and talked to 22 staff members.
The home supported adults with learning disabilities and autism. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable risk assessments and a clean environment. People were treated kindly and supported to make choices, build independence, take part in activities and use community services.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous rating was Requires Improvement, with three breaches of regulation. Inspectors found enough improvement had been made and the home was no longer in breach.
Person-centred support
People were supported to make choices, develop skills and become more independent. Their daily routines and activities reflected their likes and dislikes.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed calm, compassionate support. Staff understood people's communication, preferences and signs of anxiety.
“We observed staff consistently treated people with a very kind and compassionate manner.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to attend clubs, community activities, voluntary work and social events. They could decide whether to take part.
“People were offered a stimulating range of social and recreational activities.” from the report
Staff training and recruitment
Recruitment checks, induction, supervision, appraisal and training were in place. Staff were assessed to make sure they had the skills needed.
“Thorough recruitment and staff induction was in place to ensure that staff were suitable to work and provide support within the service.” from the report
Family expectations and choice
needs fixingInspectors discussed the need to improve people's understanding of how choice works in adult services. This may matter when expectations differ between families and the home.
“We discussed with the manager ways to improve people's understanding of how individuals are supported with choice.” from the report
Some care records were not fully tailored
minorCare plans were detailed, but the standard format sometimes included information that was not relevant to the individual.
“We found that the standardised format of the plans meant that sometimes information was recorded when not required or relevant to individuals.” from the report
Complaints recording
needs fixingComplaints were recorded in care files and acted on, but the complaints log was not always updated. This could make it harder to see the full history of concerns and responses.
“Records were maintained on the care files and the outcome recorded but not reflected in the complaints log.” from the report
Management systems still bedding in
minorManagement restructuring and audits had improved oversight, but inspectors said the new arrangements needed time to become consistent.
“The improved structure and the audits in place were effectively monitoring the service but needed time to embed and achieve the necessary consistency.” from the report
- 01How do you explain choices and decision-making in adult services to people and their families?
- 02How do you make sure each care plan contains only information that is relevant to that person?
- 03How are complaints, including concerns raised by people who cannot communicate verbally, recorded in the complaints log?
- 04How do you check that the new management and audit systems remain consistent?
- 05How do you record food and drink, including portion sizes, when monitoring a person's weight?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with visits to the office and home and checks of care, staff and governance records. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 August 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, May 2018
Field View rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and personalised care, but unsafe hot water and weak oversight created important concerns.
This was an unannounced inspection on 22 and 29 January 2018. It was the first inspection of the home. The inspector looked at two people's care records, observed care, checked staff recruitment records, spoke with staff and management, and reviewed the building and management records.
The home was rated Good for effective, caring and responsive care. People were supported by trained staff, treated with kindness and dignity, and given personalised care and activities. Their medicines, nutrition and access to health professionals were also checked and found to be managed well.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for safe and well-led care. Water from two taps was much hotter than safe levels and could have caused scalds. The management checks had recorded high temperatures but had not led to action until inspectors raised the issue. The provider also failed to notify CQC about some Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw warm, patient interactions between staff and people. Staff understood people's needs and supported their dignity.
“There was a friendly atmosphere within the service and staff spoke kindly and with respect to people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records included people's routines, relationships, behavioural needs, activities and dietary needs. Staff showed they understood how to support individuals.
“Care records contained personalised information about people's care needs which was specific to them.” from the report
Activities and inclusion
People were supported to take part in activities linked to their interests, including walks, shopping and going out for a drink.
“People were supported to engage in activities which helped ensure that they were protected from the risk of social isolation.” from the report
Trained staff and medicines support
Staff had relevant training, induction and supervision. Medicines were stored securely, records were signed and stock quantities were correct.
“People were supported to take their medication as prescribed.” from the report
Scalding risk
seriousHot water from two taps was well above safe levels. The management team took immediate action during the inspection, but the recorded temperatures had not previously led to a fix.
“The water temperature coming from one tap registered at 67 degrees Celsius, whilst we found another to be at 64 degrees Celsius.” from the report
Weak safety monitoring
seriousThe home's monitoring systems did not identify and address the unsafe water temperatures, even though the issue appeared on monitoring charts.
“Quality monitoring systems had failed to identify that water temperatures were in excess of safe levels and posed a risk of scalds to people.” from the report
Missing CQC notifications
seriousThe provider did not notify CQC when people were placed under DoLS, as required by law.
“the registered provider had not notified the CQC where people had been made subject to a DoLS, as required.” from the report
Limited accessible information
minorCare records were not always adapted into easy-read formats using pictures, although activity boards did use pictures to support daily routines.
“Information was not always available for people in different formats to help ensure this was accessible for them.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to the hot water system after the inspection, and how are temperatures now checked and recorded?
- 02How do you make sure that problems recorded on monitoring charts are acted on promptly?
- 03Have all required DoLS notifications now been sent to CQC, and who is responsible for checking this?
- 04How will you provide care information in accessible formats, such as easy-read pictures, for people who need it?
- 05What action was included in the report sent to CQC, and has all of it been completed?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five quality areas, including care records, staff practice, recruitment, the premises, medicines, maintenance and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 May 2018 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
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 December 2016.
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 Warrington
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 £1,260 a week. 90 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.