- Care home
Field View
Assessment report published 20 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
We carried out this assessment on 8 September 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
People who used the service were supported by sufficient staff who had the skills and training to support them safely. Staff were safely recruited and underwent an induction process. We found local inductions were not in place for staff who had recently transferred from another of the provider’s services. We fed this back to the provider who gave us assurance tailored local inductions would also be recorded in future. Staff were well supported by the management team and received appropriate training and checks on their competency. Some staff were not fully confident in all areas of practice. The provider acknowledged this and committed to refresh staff knowledge and understanding where needed. Some staff received additional training to enable them to administer medicines and had their competency to do this checked. Medicines were safely managed although the timing of one person’s medication required review and two staff were not clear about a particular medicine and its potential impact.
Staff understood their responsibility to report and act on safeguarding concerns, should they suspect a person was at risk of abuse or experiencing abuse. The registered manager reported safeguarding concerns to the local authority safeguarding team and to CQC. However, we identified two instances where this had not taken place. People were not injured and had not come to harm, but best practice would have been to report any concerns. The registered managers acknowledged this and noted for future occasions.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that nobody was subject to a DoLS authorisation. Staff and management worked within the MCA and people were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions and had choice, control and freedom over their lives.
Risks were identified, mitigated and regularly monitored to ensure changes to risk assessments were not required. However, we identified cluttered areas which could impede evacuation in the event of a fire. The provider addressed this whilst we were onsite. Risks relating to infection prevention and control required some review. The environment was safe and suitable for the people who used the service who accessed all areas of the service independently. Maintenance staff carried out regular safety checks to ensure systems were working correctly and to keep the building in a good state of repair.
People’s needs were assessed prior to them coming to live at Field View and regularly reviewed. Some care plans were not sufficiently detailed. The provider has begun a review of care plans. Health needs were monitored and appropriate referrals to healthcare professionals were made when needed. People consented to their care and care plans reflected this.
Care was person centred and people were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. People received the care they needed whilst their independence was maintained as much as possible. Staff were kind and relationships between staff and the people they were supporting and caring for, were very good. Care was unhurried and the atmosphere was calm and happy throughout the service. Staff were very positive about the service and proud of the support and care they provided.
There were systems and processes in place to monitor the service. However, these systems had not identified issues relating to the safety of the environment, staff knowledge and a lack of detail in some care plans. The provider acknowledged this and gave us assurances the relevant processes would be reviewed. Staff were supported with supervision sessions and regular staff meetings. There was a shared direction and a culture based on a ‘familial’ model of care in this small care home.
People's experience of this service
People and their relatives spoke very positively about the service. People told us they felt safe and comfortable. One person explained, ‘I have nothing to worry about – no cooking, no cleaning and someone here if I need them. I just please myself.’ People told us there were enough staff and they were confident in their skills and abilities. One commented, ‘The staff are wonderful – they do everything for me.’ People were happy with how staff administered their medicines and said any pain was managed promptly.
We observed warm relationships between staff and people using the service and lots of laughter. People told us they were comfortable with the staff and trusted them to ensure their dignity. Relatives were very appreciative of the care provided. One person told us, ‘My [family member] says ‘take the words “care home” out of it – this is a home where you get care.’’ Another relative commented positively on how the service made sure their family member’s individual tastes and preferences were respected. It was important to both of them. They told us their relative had recently moved from another service and staff had already got to know their family member well in a very short time. ‘[The staff] are amazing to be honest. I came in this morning and [my relative] is really nicely dressed – everything matching and looking really nice.’
People’s health needs were well managed and people told us they were supported to access GPs, dentists, opticians and other healthcare appointments. A range of activities was provided, and we received some mixed feedback about this. One person commented there was not enough to do and said they would welcome more structured sessions while another felt the activities staff did a good job in trying to engage people with a wide range of interests and abilities. People were also encouraged and enabled to follow their own interests and hobbies from word searches and puzzles to watching wildlife and playing the piano.
People were positive about the food and confirmed their choices and preferences were respected. One person told us they had requested sweet and sour chicken and now that was a staple on the menu. They commented, ‘I’m going to ask about teriyaki sauce next!’ People told us they felt comfortable in the service with many staff being long term staff they knew well. One person expressed this saying, ‘We are alright here, they look after you, you eat well…sleep well… and if you want anything you shout or ring and staff come when needed.’ A relative commented that their family member had had a significant and very positive change in mood since coming to live at the service saying, ‘I think they are absolutely brilliant on every level. [My family member’s] spirits are lifted…before [they] lacked attention. Now [they have] a laugh and a fuss made of [them] but also [their] own space when [they] want that too.’