You are here

Archived: Field View Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 25 February 2017

The inspection took place on 31 January 2017 and was unannounced.

Field View is a residential home which provides care to older people including some people who are living with dementia. Field View is registered to provide care for up to 20 people. At the time of our inspection there were 15 people living at the home.

There was 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.

At our previous inspection in May 2016 we found breaches of the regulations related to managing risks to people’s safe care and treatment, staffing levels and the governance of the home. We also identified the provider's registration status with us had not been updated to confirm that there was now only one owner with responsibility for the registered regulated activity at the home. This meant the provider’s' registration status with us was not correct which was a breach of Regulation 21 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Following our visit, the provider sought professional advice regarding the registration of a new legal entity. The registration was completed at the beginning of December 2016 which meant the service was appropriately registered in accordance with our registration regulations and the responsibility for the regulated activity remained with the same person before and following the new registration.

At this inspection we looked to see if the provider had responded to make the required improvements. We found sufficient improvements had been made to meet the regulations previously breached. However, we identified some incidents in the home had not been recognised as potential safeguarding issues that should have been reported to us and the local authority safeguarding team.

People and their relatives were confident they received safe care and support from staff who knew people well. Staff were available to respond to people’s requests for assistance, and there was always a member of staff in the lounge area where people sat during the day. Care plans did not always include detailed risk assessments, but staff were knowledgeable about people's individual risks. Staff understood their responsibilities to report any concerns they had about people's health or wellbeing. The character and values of staff were checked prior to employment, to ensure they were of a suitable character to work with people living in the home.

Medicines were stored safely, but improvements were required to ensure medicines were given in accordance with people’s prescriptions.

Staff were encouraged to keep their training and skills up to date and had regular meetings with their managers to discuss their role and any training or development needs.

The registered manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). They had applied to the Supervisory Body for the authority to restrict people’s rights, choices or liberty in their best interests. Staff understood and acted within the principles of the Act to support people to make their own decisions.

People were offered food that met their dietary needs. People were encouraged to eat their meals and offered regular drinks to maintain their hydration. People were supported to access medical professionals when they needed to. Relatives were kept informed of any changes in their family member’s health.

People were cared for by staff who were kind and caring and who acknowledged the importance of respecting and ensuring people’s privacy was maintained. Staff had a friendly approach to people and were responsive to their needs. Staff understood the value of knowing people’s personal histor

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 25 February 2017

The service was not consistently safe.

Staff understood how to safeguard people from harm or abuse and there were enough staff available to care for people safely. However, the registered manager had not recognised some incidents and accidents as potential safeguarding issues and referred them to us and the local authority as required. Written care plans did not always record the actions staff should take to minimise people's individual risks. Improvements were needed to ensure people were always given their medicines as prescribed. The provider recruited staff of good character to support people at the home.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 February 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had the training, skills and experience to meet people�s needs effectively. The registered manager and staff knew how to support people in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) so that people�s rights were protected. People received food and drink that met their preferences and maintained their health. People were supported to access medical professionals when they needed to.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 February 2017

The service was caring.

People were supported by kind and caring staff who knew them well as individuals. People had their privacy respected and staff supported people to maintain their independence. Staff did not rush people and took time to listen to and understand people with limited verbal communication. People were involved in making everyday decisions.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 February 2017

The service was responsive.

Staff supported people to spend time engaging with staff, socialising with others or alone, according to people�s needs and preferred routines. Care records did not always capture changes in people's needs. However, staff knew people well and shared information about changes at verbal handovers between shifts and a written communication book. People were able to raise complaints about the service, and the provider had procedures in place to learn from, and respond to complaints.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 25 February 2017

The service was not consistently well-led.

The management team were approachable and there was a clear management structure to support staff. The manager was accessible to people who used the service, their relatives, and members of staff. The provider had implemented a series of audits which had resulted in improvement to the quality monitoring system. However, further work was now needed to ensure the audits were implemented effectively and consistently.