Fieldhead Park

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 inadequate. At this assessment, the

rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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 had an engaging, proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and

honesty and working with people to identify where areas could improve. Staff listened to

concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were continuously

learnt to identify and embed good practice.

Staff and leaders demonstrated a positive learning culture. Incident and accident logs were well

maintained, and there was clear evidence that lessons were learned from events. Staff spoke

confidently about how learning was shared across the team, and people told us they felt safer as

a result.

Mealtime improvements were also introduced based on feedback from people. Two new chefs

had recently commenced employment. They attended meetings to gather feedback, people

chose their preferred music, a new dietary assistant had also been employed to ensure all

individual dietary needs were being met. The Registered Manager undertook regular audits of

the dining experience and implemented positive changes. These changes led to improved nutrition, increased dining room attendance, and reduced food waste.

The provider worked well with people and healthcare partners to develop and maintain safe care

systems where safety was actively monitored and managed. They ensured continuity of care,

including during transitions between services. Moves into and out of the service were well

coordinated, supported by clear communication between staff and external professionals.

People told us they felt reassured and well supported during these changes.

The provider worked closely with people and healthcare partners to understand what safety meant to them and how best to achieve it. Staff focused on improving people’s lives while safeguarding their right to live free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm, and neglect. Concerns were shared promptly and appropriately. Staff had completed relevant training and understood their responsibilities. Robust procedures were in place, and issues were reported and acted on without delay. People and relatives told us they felt safe and knew who to approach if they had concerns. One relative said, “[Name] has been here 17 months. It’s a great relief to us to have someone look after them. [Name] is putting on weight. [Name] is healthy and clean.”

The provider worked with people to take a holistic approach to understanding and managing

risks. Staff delivered care that was safe and supportive while enabling individuals to do the

things that mattered to them. People were encouraged to make informed choices and maintain

independence while staying safe. Risk assessments were in place and reflected personal

preferences. Staff were confident in supporting people with complex healthcare needs,

balancing safety with autonomy and involvement.

The provider identified and managed potential risks within the care environment. Equipment,

facilities, and technology were maintained to support safe care delivery. The premises were

clean, well maintained, and free from hazards. Regular audits were carried out, and any

required actions were taken promptly. We observed ongoing maintenance during our visit.

People told us they felt comfortable and safe in their surroundings. One relative commented,

“The building is nice, not too modern.”

The provider continued to use a recognised tool to ensure there were enough qualified, skilled, and experienced staff. Staff received effective support, supervision, and development opportunities. Recruitment processes were safe, and staff were deployed appropriately. Call bells were answered promptly, and people told us they rarely had to wait for assistance. There were mixed views about staffing levels. Most people felt there were enough staff and told us staff came quickly. Relatives gave mixed feedback with some feeling that staffing was appropriate and others stating they felt more staff were required. Most staff said they felt supported and had manageable workloads, although some expressed concerns that previous staffing levels had been low and feared they might drop again as more people use the service. We shared this feedback with the manager, who confirmed the tool would continue to be used and staffing levels adjusted to meet people’s needs. Rotas showed consistent staffing, and contingency plans were in place.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk

of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Infection prevention

and control measures were robust. Personal Protective Equipment [PPE] was available and

used correctly, and the home was clean throughout. Staff had completed relevant training and

followed hygiene protocols. People told us they felt reassured by the cleanliness and staff

practices. People’s comments included, “The cleaners are excellent” and “The home is clean

and tidy throughout.” Cleaning audits were completed regularly, and any issues were escalated

appropriately.

The provider ensured medicines and treatments were managed safely and aligned with people’s

needs, capacities, and preferences.

Medication administration records (MARs) were accurate, up to date, and maintained for each

individual, providing a clear audit trail and supporting adherence to prescribed treatment.

Protocols for ‘as required’ (PRN) medicines were generally in place to guide staff on indications,

dosage, and administration.

However, we found one instance where a protocol for senna was

missing, It is important to note that this had no impact on the person's senna being administered as and when required.

Existing protocols supported consistent and safe decision-making tailored to individual

needs.

Staff responsible for administering medicines underwent regular competency assessments,

including practical observation and theoretical evaluation, to confirm their knowledge and skills.

Only staff who demonstrated competency were authorised to administer medication.

A robust incident reporting system was in place for medication errors or near misses. Issues

were promptly investigated, and corrective actions implemented to prevent recurrence. These

included reviewing systems, providing additional training, and updating protocols to safeguard

people’s health and wellbeing.

Regular medicines audits verified that all medicines, including controlled drugs, were accurately

accounted for and stored appropriately. Audits reviewed record keeping and compliance with

prescribing instructions, ensuring ongoing safety and regulatory compliance. Any errors were

investigated thoroughly, and lessons learned were embedded into practice.