During our inspection we spoke with ten of the 54 people who lived at Field House. We also spoke with the registered manager, eight members of staff, three visiting professionals and six relatives of people who lived at the home.
We used this inspection to answer our five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people who used the service, their relatives, visiting professionals and the staff told us.
Is the service safe?
People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff, People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. Policies and procedures were in place to help make sure unsafe practice could be identified and people were protected.
We saw systems were in place to help ensure the manager and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.
The home had policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant people were safeguarded as required.
People living at the home were supported by a staff team who had systems in place which enabled them to carry out their duties safely and effectively.
Is the service effective?
Advocacy services were available if people needed them. This meant people could access independent support when they required it.
People's health and care needs were assessed with them and they were involved in the development of their plans of care. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. Care plans reflected the current needs and wishes of people living at the home.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw staff were patient and gave encouragement when they supported people. One person said; "The staff here are marvellous and so kind to me".
People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support was provided in accordance with people's wishes.
Is the service responsive?
People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. The complaints procedure was easily accessible and details were displayed on the wall in the hallway and in people's service user guides. People we spoke with told us they had no complaints to make. We saw a comments book was available for people to make comments in and a suggestion box was clearly visible on the wall in reception. The registered manager told us the suggestion box was emptied once a week and the comments book was checked weekly.
Is the service well led?
People who used the service, their relatives, friends and others involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. Comments and ideas were listened to and acted upon in a timely manner.
The service worked well with other agencies and services to help make sure people received their care in a consistent and appropriate manner.
The service had a quality assurance system and records showed notes for action were addressed promptly. As a result, the quality of the service continued to improve.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes which were in place. This helped ensure people received a good quality service at all times.