Archived: Field House

Field House is a small family run care home which is able to accommodate up to five people. The home specialises in the care of people who have a learning disability. At the time of the inspection four people were living at the home.

The last inspection of the home was carried out in August 2014. No concerns were raised at that inspection.

The service is run by Miss Dawn Paxton as a sole provider. As a sole provider she is not required to employ a registered manager. Instead she has opted to manage the service herself. 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.

The provider was open and approachable. They worked alongside care staff which enabled them to monitor practice and seek people’s views.

People were happy with the care and support they received and staff encouraged them to maintain their independence. Everyone had a care plan which set out the support they required but there was no evidence that people had been fully involved in writing their care plans.

People were comfortable and relaxed with the provider and staff who supported them and said they would be able to share any worries or concerns. However there was no complaints policy displayed in the home which could mean people who did not feel able to share concerns were not able to make a complaint.

Risks of abuse to people were minimised because the provider operated a robust recruitment process and staff knew what to do if they had concerns about a person. Risk assessments were carried out with people to ensure they were able to take part in activities with minimum risk to themselves and others.

People felt at home at Field House and their privacy was respected. People had formed friendships with each other and there was a happy atmosphere within the home. Staff knew people well and there was chatter and laughter between people and staff.

People took part in activities of their choosing each day. Everyone had their own room which they were able to personalise to their tastes and people were able to spend time alone when they wanted to.

Staff monitored people’s well-being and they had access to healthcare professionals according to their individual needs. Where people were not able to fully understand treatment options available the provider involved professionals and people’s representatives to make sure any decisions made were in the person’s best interests.

People were happy with the food served at the home and said they always had enough to eat. Some people were able to make drinks for themselves and staff supported other people in line with their risk assessments.

The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions:

Is the service safe?

Is the service caring?

Is the service effective?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary described what people using the service and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by staff. People told us they felt safe. Comments included "they look after me properly" and "they are very good - if I need anything they get it for me". Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Staff were aware of when an application should be made and how to submit one.

People had been cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and well maintained, therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk.

There was enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the people living at the home and a senior member of staff was available on call in case of emergencies. Staff turnover was low and this provided consistency to people who lived at the home. Two relatives told us "staff are excellent", "staff are brilliant, outstanding" and "they are like a family".

Is the service effective?

The home had a warm, homely and friendly atmosphere. Two relatives described it as a "fun, happy place" and "an atmosphere of contentment". People told us they were happy with the care they received. It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with staff they understood people's support needs and that they knew them very well.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. People told us they made choices about their daily lives.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. Records showed that people's preferences, choices and needs had been recorded and support plans had been provided that met their needs. People undertook a range of activities that were important to them and had been supported to maintain relationships with their friends and relatives.

People knew how to raise a complaint if they were unhappy. They told us they had no concerns and were happy living at the home.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other professionals to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. One social care professional told us "staff worked hard to meet people's needs" and "were really good at communication".

The service had a quality assurance system, but plans to improve this were in place.

Staff told us they felt listened to, supported and that the provider valued their opinions. One member of staff told us "it's a nice place to work - like a family".

People we spoke with told us they were very happy living in the home and received the care and support they needed. One person told about and showed us the work they were doing in the garden. They said how much they had enjoyed growing tomatoes and beetroot. Another person told us that everything was 'Going well.'

We obtained information from one of the GP practices that provides medical care to people living in the home. We requested information about their experiences with the service in regard to how well the home staff kept in contact raised concerns and responded to advice and instruction. We were told 'The doctors were unanimous with their praise of Field House, no concerns at all.'

We spoke with two of the four people who lived in the home and the two staff on duty at the time of the visit. We looked at parts of the environment and reviewed records relating to quality assurance.

The people we spoke with told us that they were 'happy' and that everything was 'alright.'

We found that the provider was compliant in both areas that we reviewed.