We carried out a review of the data available to us about East Fields on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about East Fields, you can give feedback on this service.
East Fields is registered with CQC to provide respite accommodation and personal care for up to eight people. It is located in a small village on the outskirts of Chesterfield with good links to local facilities. A total of 33 people used the service at different times. There were four people accessing the service at the time of our inspection.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence.
People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People told us they were exceptionally happy with the support they received from East Fields. Relatives described the service as being ‘a life line’ to them and ‘home from home’.
The service was passionate and committed in placing people at the heart of the service. There was an extremely strong person centred, caring and responsive ethos. People consistently told us how they were treated with exceptional kindness, compassion and respect. We saw there was an extremely positive atmosphere and engaging interaction during our visit.
We received many accounts of people's views of their support. Comments from people and relatives were, without exception, positive. They included, “They really go the extra mile, I'd would be lost without them.” And, “I have every confidence in them.”
The service was exceptionally well-led which was evidenced by the inspection findings. The registered manager demonstrated how their dedication and approach to supporting people provided a positive role model for all the staff.
People's needs, and wishes were fully met by staff that knew them well and were passionate about people’s independence. People were respected and valued as individuals; and empowered as partners in their care in an exceptional service.
People received fantastic personalised care and support specific to their needs and preferences. People’s needs were considered and reviewed, and changes made where improvements were needed.
People received their medicines as prescribed and were assisted to learn how to self-medicate, this took time and encouragement and staff were patiently committed to enabling people to do as much for themselves as possible. Staff were well trained, and medicines were safely managed.
People were safeguarded from the risks of abuse. Risks associated with people’s care were assessed and monitored. Staff were very knowledgeable about how they kept people safe. People and relatives told us the service was safe.
Environment risks were identified and well managed.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible, and in their best interests. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
There were enough staff to meet the needs of each person. Recruitment continued to be undertaken in a safe way. Accidents and incidents were monitored and analysed.
Staff were skilled, motivated and knowledgeable. They had received appropriate training and support and were encouraged to develop their individual skills and interests. People received a balanced diet which met their individual needs and took into consideration their preferences.
People were supported by staff who were incredibly kind and caring and who maintained their dignity and privacy and treated them with utmost respect.
Feedback about the registered manager was exceptionally positive and staff felt very well supported. Staff were motivated and proud of the service and morale was very high.
People were fully involved in the service and had opportunities to give feedback.
The service applied the principles and values apply the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
The last rating for this service was good (published December 2016).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
We inspected this service on 24 November 2016 and it was announced. This meant the provider and staff knew we would be visiting the service before we arrived. At our last inspection in May 2014 there were no breaches in the regulations we looked at.
The service was registered to provide accommodation for up to eight people. A total of 43 people used the service at varying times of the year. There were five people using the service at the time of this inspection.
The service had a registered manager in post. 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.
Staff understood what constituted abuse or poor practice and systems and processes were in place to protect people from the risk of harm. People were protected against the risk of abuse, as checks were made to confirm staff were of good character and suitable to work in a care environment. We saw there was sufficient staff available to support people and they were supported to take their medicine as prescribed. Following assessment’s equipment was in place to meet people’s diverse needs which enabled them to maintain choice and independence.
People received support from staff that were trained. Staff received support and supervision, to monitor their performance and develop their skills. Staff knew about people’s individual capacity to make decisions and understood how to support people to make their own decisions. When people were unable to consent mental capacity assessment and best interest decisions had been completed.
People were treated with respect and supported to maintain their dignity. The staff worked in partnership with people when supporting them. Staff knew people’s likes and dislikes and support records reflected how people wanted to be supported and how care was provided.
The staff team actively sought and included people and their representatives in the planning of care. There were processes in place for people to raise any complaints and express their views and opinions about the service provided. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service to enable the registered manager and provider to drive improvement.
Below is a summary of what we found.
Is the service safe?
The premises were clean, well maintained and accessible for physically disabled people. We saw appropriate security measures were in place to protect people using the service. Procedures were also in place for responding to foreseeable emergencies to reduce the risks to people receiving care. We found other systems were in also place to reduce risks, for example for the safe storage and use of hazardous substances such as cleaning products and medication. The registered manager was aware of how to recognise if people were at risk of being deprived of their liberty and what action to take if this was the case. Equipment provided to ensure people were comfortable and safe was in good working order and we saw records showing regular safety checks were completed.
Is the service effective?
People's needs were being met at the service. We found people's needs were assessed and care files included detailed information about how they received their care. Records included information about any diagnosed health conditions and disabilities. Risks that could affect people had been adequately assessed and guidance produced for staff as part of the care planning process. This meant that care planning protected people's welfare and safety. Consent was obtained for people's care and appropriate arrangements were in place if people could not consent for themselves, for example due to their learning disability.
Is the service caring?
People told us they were happy with the care they received at the service. One person said, "I love it here. I get to cook, just like a chef.' We observed staff providing people's care were positive and encouraging in their approach. We saw they offered people options and ensured they were happy with their activities and day to day care.
Is the service responsive?
People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. We found people were asked for their views about the care delivered at the service. People receiving care told us they knew how to raise concerns or complaints and that these were responded to by the registered manager. The provider had taken steps to ensure the premises were suitable for peoples' needs, for example people who had a visual impairment, dementia or an autistic spectrum disorder.
Is the service well-led?
The registered manager completed regular checks and audits of all aspects of safety and care at the home. Records showed checks of incidents, accidents and complaints were completed by the registered manager or delegated to staff. Other quality audits were completed regularly to ensure the service was safe. People involved with the service completed satisfaction surveys and records showed action was taken where any improvements were required. Professional advice was sought and used to provide people with safe, appropriate care, for example from external health professionals.
We found care was planned and delivered effectively by the provider. People's needs were assessed and staff had access to detailed care plans and risk assessments to enable them to deliver safe and appropriate care.
We examined records and spoke with staff and relatives of people receiving care and found sufficient numbers of experienced and skilled staff were provided to support people safely.
Although no-one we spoke with had needed to make a complaint, we found the provider had appropriate procedures in place for dealing with people's concerns or complaints.
We found that appropriate procedures were not in place for obtaining consent where people were unable to make decisions about their care.