The Fields Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People benefitted from a kind, compassionate, and respectful staff team. Staff treated people with dignity and warmth. We observed positive interactions and staff demonstrated genuine care and attentiveness. People appeared at ease with staff and told us they felt cared for. One person told us, “They treat me like the Queen Mother.” A family member told us, “The staff are lovely and they pop and speak to [name] whenever they can.”
 

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The provider did not always involve people in planning their care. This meant care plans contained minimal information about the person, their wishes and preferences and did not support staff to provide person-centred care. No one we spoke to were able to talk about their care plans, but all felt their care was appropriate and what they wanted.

Despite omissions in care plan documentation, staff were knowledgeable when it came to people’s basic likes, dislikes, preferences and interests. Feedback from people and relatives was positive.
 

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Whilst people and relatives provided positive feedback about the care provided, people were not consistently involved in planning or reviewing their care, and opportunities to provide feedback about the service were limited. As a result, people did not always have full control or choice over their care and how it was delivered. A family member told us, “We were not consulted in the care planning for [name] despite being their main carer at home. We didn’t know how we could contribute. We thought because [name] came here from hospital, it would be hospital staff who told the staff here.”
 

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were attentive and knew people well and recognised signs of discomfort or distress. One professional told us, “The manager is proactive in communicating concerns around residents’ health and wellbeing.” One person told us, “My current ‘wellness’ is due to the care and support I receive here.”
 

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Whilst some improvement had been made during 2026, the manager told us that no formal staff supervisions or annual appraisals had taken place during 2025. Regular supervision and appraisal provide opportunities for staff to reflect on their practice, identify learning needs, and receive support to carry out their role effectively.

One staff member we spoke with, who had been employed at the service for approximately two years, told us they had only recently received their first supervision session. Prior to this, they had not received any formal supervision. Despite this, the staff member said they felt well supported by the manager and were able to raise concerns or seek guidance when required.

The lack of regular supervision and appraisal meant the provider could not demonstrate that staff performance, competency, and development needs were being consistently monitored and reviewed. This reduced opportunities to identify areas for improvement and promote good practice across the service.