• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: The Field House Residential Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

110 Harborne Park Road, Harborne, Birmingham, West Midlands, B17 0BS (0121) 426 3157

Provided and run by:
Parkhouse Care Limited

All Inspections

29 July 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.

The inspection was unannounced which means that we did not tell the provider beforehand that we were coming to inspect the home. At the last inspection in August 2013 the provider was meeting the requirements of the Regulations we looked at.

The Field House Residential Care Home is an adapted residential house. It provides accommodation for up to 21 older adults some of whom have dementia. At the time of our inspection 19 people were using the service. There was a registered manager at this location. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

People who lived in the home, their relatives and health professionals who visited told us they felt that people at the home were safe. We saw there were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. During our visit we found staff were caring and kept asking people if they needed anything. People told us that staff were nice to them. We saw that people were treated with dignity and respect.

Staff received appropriate training and were knowledgeable about the needs of people living in the home. They provided effective care and support that met people’s individual needs. We found that staff worked flexibly to ensure there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs and to enable people to participate in interests which they liked.

People were able to make choices about what they did and what they ate. People were supported to express their views and engage in hobbies and interests they wanted to do. Staff were able to explain how people liked to be supported.

Management systems were well established to monitor and learn from incidents and concerns. There were also systems to ensure the quality of the service was regularly reviewed against national standards of good practice. This meant that people received a service which constantly sought to improve and achieve compliance against national health and social care regulations.

20 August 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We undertook this inspection to follow up concerns that were found during our previous visit in April 2013. This related to the management of medicines and the level of support staff received.

During this inspection we spoke with two members of staff and two senior staff who were on duty. We saw that action had been taken to ensure people received their medication safely and were cared for by staff who were adequately supported to meet their care needs.

17 April 2013

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we spoke with nine people who use the service, four care staff, and the registered manager. We also spoke with the relative of one person who was visiting the home.

The people we spoke with were all positive about the care and support they received. People told us, 'I'm quite happy, everybody is nice' and 'It's a lovely place, things are kept clean'They do look after you.'

We found that the quality of care people received was good overall. Care and treatment was provided in agreement with the people who use the service. People were supported to maintain their independence and were consulted on issues that affected them.

However, we did have some concerns around the management of medicines in the home, procedures in place were not always robust. We also found staff did not receive adequate support and supervision.

3 May 2012

During a routine inspection

During our visit we spoke with nine people who used the service, three people visiting the home (two relatives and one health professional), four members of staff and the manager.

Everyone we spoke with was complimentary about the home and the staff that worked there. The comments we received from the people who used the service were very positive. One person told us: 'Would give them A plus' others told us: 'Very pleasant' and 'I'm happy here'.

People told us they enjoyed the food and were offered alternatives if they didn't like the menu. Specific requests were catered for and any special dietary needs accommodated.

The two visiting relatives told us how welcoming the staff were. They told us about things they had seen going on in the home. For example, various activities and applying sun cream and hats to the people when they sat out in the sun. The health professional who regularly visited the home also expressed their confidence in the staff.

The staff we spoke with told us they enjoyed their job and this was reflected in the positive interactions between the staff and people who used the service. While we were visiting the home we saw one person being taken out by the manager to see a friend in hospital.