Field Farm House Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe, which increased the risk that people could be harmed.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did not always act on concerns about safety and did not always investigate and report safety events. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Although the provider had some checks in place to assess the environment, they did not identify issues which could put people at risk of avoidable harm. For example, on 2 of our site visits, people had access to areas where there were unlocked products. These areas included cleaning substances that could harm the people at the service if they were touched or swallowed. This placed people at risk of avoidable harm. On the 3rd site visit we saw these items were safely secured.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. Relatives told us people were referred to health services where needed, and they were kept informed of outcomes. We sought feedback from professionals and the majority of responses were positive. However, one external professional said they felt the service did not always report concerns in a timely manner, whilst all others said the service was proactive and responded to people’s needs and made referrals appropriately. The provider had processes in place to support transitions between services, like when people needed to go to hospital. We saw evidence of pre assessment processes in people’s care plans, this allowed staff to understand people’s needs before they arrived.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. People and all relatives we spoke with told us they felt safe and knew where to report any concerns should they need to. Staff understood how to protect people from harm and had received the relevant training. They told us they knew where access information to report any concerns.

The service worked with people and relatives to understand and manage risks. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs which was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. We observed people were able to walk around freely in the communal areas. We observed staff carrying out safe transitions when supporting people with moving and handling practices. Risks relating to the service and to individual people were assessed. These included risks associated with the environment, mobility, skin care and eating and drinking. Risk assessments formed part of the support plan for each person. We discussed with the registered manager risk assessments for people who chose to leave the service independently. The registered manager told us they would review this to ensure all risks had been considered.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment and facilities supported the delivery of safe care. During our observations we found multiple risks. Wardrobes were not secured safely. This can pose a risk of furniture falling on people. Pipes were not always boxed in safely and some radiator covers were not safe, this can cause a risk of people burning themselves by touching these hot objects. We saw 2 drainage covers posed a risk to people with trips and falls. We also identified a kitchenette area on the first floor did not have food labelled in the cupboards or the fridge in line with Environmental Health guidelines. The provider started to take action during our visits to ensure these issues were addressed.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. Staff worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Relatives told us they felt there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. One relative said, “There always seems to be enough staff around; somebody came within 30 seconds when I rang the bell once when I was visiting". Another relative said, “There are always enough staff around them when they need them. They seem to keep their staff and they’re really nice to them". People were supported by staff who had appropriate experience and were of a suitable character to work with people. The service had recruitment processes in place. Pre-employment checks were completed for staff. These included employment history, references, and Disclosure and Barring Service checks (DBS). A DBS is a criminal record check to ensure the staff member is of good character to work with people at the service.

The provider did not always assess or manage the risk of infection prevention. Not all areas of the home were maintained in a way which safely supported effective infection prevention and control practices. For example, we saw a kitchenette area which was unclean and had stained crockery, units, walls and cupboards. We also saw some bathrooms which required cleaning and disposal waste bins were not in working order, this placed people at risk of infection. The service had a policy and procedure in place for Infection Prevention and Control (IPC). There were regular IPC audits completed by a staff member. However, these audits were ineffective as they had not identified the concerns we found during our assessment.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people and relatives in planning, including when changes happened. People received their medicines as prescribed. Relatives told us they were kept informed of any changes to their loved one’s medicines. One relative told us, “They send me a list of medications that they are on. There has never been any problems". Staff had received training in the safe administration of medicines and had their competency assessed. We discussed with the provider about adding more specific information in people’s care plans when applying topical creams.