You are here

We are carrying out checks at Mary Feilding Guild using our new way of inspecting services. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 27 May 2016

We inspected this service on 12 April 2016. The inspection was unannounced. Mary Feilding Guild is a care home registered for a maximum of 43 people.

At the time of our inspection there were 43 people living at the service. The service was located in a large detached building with access to a back and side garden. We previously inspected the service on 7 August 2014 and the service was found to be meeting the regulations inspected.

At the time of the inspection, the manager of the service was in the process of applying for registration as the ‘registered manager’ at the service. Since the inspection the person has been confirmed in this role by the Care Quality Commission. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There was a warm and friendly atmosphere at the service. People using the service informed us that they were happy with the care and services provided. Staff talked positively about their jobs telling us they enjoyed their work and felt valued. The staff we met were caring, kind and compassionate and treated people with dignity and respect.

We saw staff were aware of people’s needs and that care plans were up to date, although we found records were hard to navigate. Risk assessments had been carried out and updated regularly. We noted falls had not always been managed well in the past but there was now a new system in place to support staff to deal with these more effectively.

People were supported to maintain good health through regular access to healthcare professionals such as GPs and the local general hospital. In general people spoke well of the food, and we saw there was a plentiful and varied range of meals available. People’s cultural and religious needs were facilitated by staff.

People had their medicines managed safely and received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were stored in a locked cupboard, and the documentation was accurate and checked regularly by the registered manager.

Staff had been carefully recruited and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff felt supported and there was evidence of supervision taking place across the last 12 months. Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns or allegations of abuse and described what action they would take to protect people against harm. Staff and people using the service told us they felt confident any incidents or allegations would be fully investigated.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. We found the service to be compliant with the legislation.

We found the premises were exceptionally clean and tidy, and measures were in place for infection control. There was a record of essential services such as gas and electricity and being checked, and equipment safely maintained. There was clear documentation relating to complaints and incidents.

People living at the service and their relatives and friends told us that the registered manager, director and other managers had a very visible presence within the home. There were a wide range of activities that took place at the service and people living there spoke highly of the person-centred care they received. There was a library and multiple laundry and kitchen facilities to encourage those who were able, to maintain their independence in these areas.

There was a lift to access upstairs and there were accessible bathing facilities for people with mobility problems. The garden was beautifully maintained.

Inspection areas



Updated 27 May 2016

The service was effective. Medicines were safely stored and administered.

People’s money was managed well and there was enough staff to support people’s needs.

The building was safely maintained and checks of essential services took place.



Updated 27 May 2016

The service was effective. People living at the service and their relatives told us they had confidence in staff skills and knowledge, and we could see staff were trained in key areas.

People were supported to maintain good health and there was a wide range of food available to support good nutrition.

Staff were aware of issues of consent and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were in place where necessary.



Updated 27 May 2016

The service was caring. People living at the service told us staff were kind, caring and patient. Importance was placed on dignity and respect for people living there.

People were actively encouraged to remain independent and there were multiple kitchen and laundry facilities to enable this.

The gardens and the building were beautifully maintained which benefitted the people living there.


Requires improvement

Updated 27 May 2016

The service was not always responsive. Care records were not easy to navigate. This made it difficult to understand a person’s care needs.

The service had not responded robustly to the management of falls, although there were new procedures now in place to support staff to keep people safe.

The activities at the service were varied, creative and met the needs of the majority of the people living at the service.



Updated 27 May 2016

The service was well led. The service had clear values of independence and dignity to guide its work.

The registered manager and director were accessible and people living at the service and their relatives praised the way the service was run.

There was evidence of quality assurance audits taking place in key areas and remedial action taken where necessary.