The Fields Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans often lacked detail about holistic support, and some guidance was generic, limiting personalised care. Systems for reviewing care plans was not fully effective, with some care plans going without review for a number of months.

People and their relatives were not always involved in developing or reviewing care plans. Records often contained limited information about what mattered most to individuals, and personal histories were not consistently explored. Care plans lacked clear, detailed guidance for staff on how to meet people’s holistic needs, which reduced opportunities for truly person-centred care.

The environment was not dementia friendly; we observed clocks displayed the incorrect time and many doors were without signage and some flooring did not support dementia friendly care.

However, the service offered a varied activity programme tailored to individual interests, including exercise, arts and crafts, cooking, gardening, and musical entertainment. People spoke positively about activities. One person told us, “I do enjoy baking which I get to do. I do knitting as well. Sometimes I get to go out shopping and I really enjoy that.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff worked effectively with health partners to maintain continuity of care. They made timely referrals to other services when needed, and staff followed professional advice to ensure people received appropriate support.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The manager was not fully familiar with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS), which aims to ensure people with a disability, impairment or sensory loss receive information in a format they can understand and access.

Despite this, there was evidence that people's communication needs were recognised and supported. For example, menus could be provided in a pictorial format where required, and information was available in alternative formats to meet individual needs. Care plans contained information about people's communication requirements, including whether they wore glasses, used hearing aids, or required other support to access information.

Although the manager's understanding of the AIS was limited, we found examples of reasonable adjustments being made to support people to access information and communicate effectively. This helped to promote people's involvement in decisions about their care and support.

The provider did not always ensure people were informed of actions taken in response to their feedback.

We discussed this with the manager, who told us residents' meetings had been arranged previously but were often poorly attended. As an alternative, people living at the service were provided with questionnaires to gather their views and experiences of care. Whilst this provided a formal mechanism for obtaining feedback, actions taken in response to the feedback received were not consistently recorded. As a result, the provider could not clearly demonstrate how people's views had been considered, acted upon, or used to drive improvements within the service. This limited assurance that feedback was used effectively to influence service development and improve outcomes for people.
 

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

There were no barriers to admission, and people had equal access to healthcare professionals, activities, and opportunities within the home. People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the service, ensuring that any necessary adaptations or equipment were in place. Care was delivered without discrimination, and people’s cultural and religious preferences were respected and supported.

People had timely access to support from healthcare professionals, such as GPs, dieticians, and tissue viability nurses. Records showed staff worked effectively with external professionals to ensure that care was provided promptly when needed.
 

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff considered people’s diverse needs and provided care without discrimination. Equality and diversity training formed part of the provider’s mandatory programme, helping staff understand and respect individual differences. People told us they felt well cared for and spoke positively about the staff who supported them. Care was delivered in a way that promoted inclusion and respected each person’s identity, preferences, and cultural background. We observed a variety of activities accessible to everyone using the service.
 

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Everyone was offered the opportunity to plan for their future care, including end-of-life preferences, although some chose not to discuss this when they first moved into the service. We reviewed examples of end-of-life care plans that reflected what was important to people and their decisions. This approach supported staff to respect people’s wishes and helped ensure they experienced dignified and comfortable end-of-life care.