CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Fields
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2022
The Fields was inspected but not rated; infection control was mostly assured, but social distancing, PPE use and resident testing were not always fully assured.
This was a targeted inspection on 13 January 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19. The inspection was announced 20 hours beforehand. Inspectors spoke with staff, residents and one relative.
Inspectors were assured about visitors, admissions, staff testing, cleaning, infection outbreak arrangements, the infection control policy and visits. The home used testing for visitors, video calls and minibus trips to help residents keep in touch with relatives.
There were some limits. Inspectors were only somewhat assured about social distancing and PPE use. One resident with COVID-19 could not self-isolate, and staff could not always ensure residents used COVID-19 tests. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Visitor infection controls
Visitors were asked to complete and record negative lateral flow tests. Staff also helped some visitors and professionals with vaccination passports.
“We were assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Keeping families connected
The home used minibus visits and video calls to help residents maintain contact with their families during restrictions.
“Residents could videocall their family relatives via social messaging networks at any time including during lockdowns when they were unable to visit.” from the report
Transport arrangements
The home used its own minibus for outings, appointments and family visits. The bus was cleaned between uses and staff used protective measures.
“A driver dropped off and picked up residents visiting family before thoroughly cleaning the bus.” from the report
Staff vaccination checks
The service was meeting the requirement for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
“The service was meeting the requirement to ensure non-exempt staff and visiting professionals were vaccinated against COVID-19.” from the report
Social distancing
needs fixingThe inspectors were only somewhat assured that shielding and social distancing rules were being met. One resident with COVID-19 could not self-isolate or socially distance, although staff put extra measures in place.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was meeting shielding and social distancing rules.” from the report
Use of PPE
needs fixingStaff could not ensure all residents wore PPE correctly, or wore it at all. Staff tried to reduce the risk through masks, gloves and handwashing.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Resident testing
needs fixingThe service could access COVID-19 testing for residents, but staff could not always ensure that residents used the tests.
“We were assured that the provider was accessing testing for people using the service, but staff were not always able to ensure residents used them.” from the report
Size of the home
minorThe home was larger than current best practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said splitting it into seven units reduced the negative impact.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01How do you protect residents and others when someone cannot self-isolate or maintain social distance?
- 02How do you help residents use PPE and COVID-19 tests when they do not understand or accept them?
- 03What staffing pressures are you experiencing now, and how often do you need bank staff to cover shortages?
- 04How do the seven units work in practice, and how do you make sure residents still have suitable social contact?
- 05What were the results of the infection control improvements and resources mentioned by the inspectors?
This was a targeted inspection of COVID-19 infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 February 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.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Rated Good, with Outstanding leadership; inspectors found kind, safe care, but the home is larger than current best practice guidance.
This was an unannounced planned re-inspection. Two inspectors and two Experts by Experience visited on 29 January and 10 February 2020. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems, personalised care, good activities and kind staff who respected people's choices, dignity and independence.
Well-led was rated Outstanding. Inspectors found exceptional leadership, strong involvement of people and staff, and a clear culture of learning and improvement. The home supports up to 54 people and was supporting 53 at the inspection. It is split into seven smaller units, which inspectors said reduced the impact of its size.
Exceptional leadership
Inspectors found that the home's leadership and values were strongly reflected across the staff team. Staff felt able to raise concerns and managers acted quickly.
“The home was exceptionally well led.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff knew them well and supported their choices. Staff protected privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were supported by kind and caring staff who knew them well.” from the report
Strong health support
The home worked closely with health professionals, including regular psychology and psychiatry clinics. Inspectors found that people's health needs were fully supported.
“The service had extremely strong working relationships with health professionals which ensured people's healthcare needs were fully met.” from the report
Choice and involvement
People were involved in daily decisions and could use advocacy support. A people's council led to changes such as a coffee machine and a planned tuck shop.
“There were very high levels of engagement with people who lived at the home.” from the report
Activities and community life
People took part in activities such as shopping, bingo, exercises, cinema trips and visits to the pub and community venues. The home had three minibuses.
“People were able to participate in a range of activities appropriate to their needs.” from the report
Large home
minorThe home was larger than current best practice guidance and supported 53 people. Inspectors said the seven-unit layout helped reduce the negative impact of its size.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
Medicine stock records
needs fixingMedicine stocks matched the recorded administrations in the sample checked. However, the way stock was recorded on one unit did not always make individual medicines easy to reconcile.
“However, the method of recording stock medicines on one of the units meant individual medicines were not always easy to reconcile.” from the report
- 01What has changed in the way medicine stock is recorded on the unit where inspectors found it difficult to reconcile individual medicines?
- 02How does the seven-unit layout make sure my relative receives personal care and does not feel affected by the home's overall size?
- 03Which unit would be the best match for my relative, and how do you assess compatibility with people already living there?
- 04How will my relative be involved in decisions about daily care, activities and their care plan?
- 05How are families told about concerns, incidents or changes in their relative's care?
This was an unannounced planned re-inspection covering all five CQC questions; the 2018 inspection report had been withdrawn because of an issue with some information gathered. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 April 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.
Every inspection of The Fields
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- April 2020GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- November 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 November 2015.
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
90 live-in carers within about an hour of Sheffield
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 £1,270 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
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.