You are here

Fieldway Care Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile


Inspection carried out on 13 August 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

Fieldway Care Home is a residential home providing nursing and/or personal care to older people. The service can accommodate and support up to 68 people in a single building compromising of two floors, each with their own separate adapted facilities. Most people using the service have nursing needs and are living with dementia. At the time of the inspection, there were 53 people using the service.

People’s experience of using this service

At our last inspection we found the provider had failed to ensure people had enough opportunities to participate in meaningful activities that reflected their social interests and needs. At this inspection we found not enough improvement had been made in relation to activities. We have therefore repeated the recommendation we made at the providers last inspection that they find out about training for activities coordinators, based on current best practice, in relation to meeting the specialist social care needs of people living with dementia.

At our last inspection we also found multiple breaches of regulation. This was because the provider had failed to ensure medicines were always safely stored; people received continuity of care and support from competent staff ; people were treated with dignity and respect, records were appropriately maintained and governance systems were operated effectively.

At this inspection we found the provider had made enough improvements to ensure they were no longer in breach of regulations. This was because we found medicines were now managed safely; sufficient nursing and care staff were employed to meet people’s ; staff treated people with respect and dignity; governance systems were operated effectively and records were appropriately maintained by staff.

Similarly, people told us the service had significantly improved in the last six months under the leadership of the new manager. Feedback from people, relatives and professionals about the standard of care and support at the home was positive. In addition, most people also said the new manager had done a “great job” ensuring the service was now fully staffed with permanent nurses and care workers who were familiar with people’s needs and wishes.

However, the provider will need to demonstrate that all the improvements described above are sustainable over a longer period of time before we can consider rating the service good overall.

People were cared for and supported by staff who knew how to manage risk and keep people safe. We saw the premises remained clean and staff followed relevant national guidelines regarding the prevention and control of infection. People continued to live in a suitably adapted and reasonably well decorated care home that met their needs.

The training and support staff received remained relevant to their roles and responsibilities. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were supported to maintain a nutritionally well-balanced diet. People were supported to stay healthy and well and have access to the relevant community health care professionals.

People were treated equally and had their human rights respected, including their spiritual and cultural needs and wishes. People were encouraged and supported to develop their independent living skills. Assessments of people’s support needs continued to be carried out before they started using the service.

Care plans were personalised and up to date. Managers and staff understood the Accessible Information Standard and ensured people were given information in a way they could easily understand. People were encouraged to make decisions about the care and support they received and had their choices respected. People were satisfied with the way the provider dealt with their concerns and complaints. People’s end of l

Inspection carried out on 28 March 2017

During a routine inspection

Fieldway Care Home provides nursing and personal care for up to 68 older people. The service has 37 designated beds for people with nursing needs and 31 beds for people who require residential care. At the time of our inspection there were 66 people residing at the home, approximately half of whom were living with dementia.

At the last Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection in May 2015, the overall rating for this service was ‘Good’. Since that inspection Fieldway Care Home has been reregistered by the CQC in February 2017 to another Bupa sub-company. Consequently, this inspection represents the service’s inaugural inspection and rating under the new provider, although most staff, processes and systems and people using the service continued to be the same. We found this newly registered service met the regulations and fundamental standards and we have rated them ‘Good’ overall.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We have made a recommendation about the home’s environment and design not being as dementia ‘friendly’ as it could be. Although we saw there were some signs up in the home to help people identify toilets and bathrooms, most bedroom doors lacked any visual clues in order to make the room more recognisable to people. We also saw communal areas such as hallways and bedroom doors, which had recently been redecorated, had been painted in similar colours. This lack of attention to the environment where people with dementia were cared for could lead to people becoming disorientated to place.

People and their relatives told us they were happy with the care the service provided. We saw staff looked after people in a way which was kind and caring. Staff had built caring and friendly relationships with people and their relatives. Our discussions with people living in the home, their relatives and community health care professionals supported this.

There were robust procedures in place to safeguard people from harm and abuse. Staff were familiar with how to recognise and report abuse. The provider assessed and managed risks to people’s safety in a way that considered their individual needs. Recruitment procedures were designed to prevent people from being cared for by unsuitable staff. There were enough staff to keep people safe. The premises and equipment were safe for people to use because managers and staff routinely carried out health and safety checks. Medicines were managed safely and people received them as prescribed.

Staff received appropriate training and support to ensure they had the knowledge and skills needed to perform their roles effectively. People were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their dietary needs and preferences. They also received the support they needed to stay healthy and to access healthcare services.

Staff were caring and treated people with dignity and respect and ensured people’s privacy was maintained particularly when being supported with their personal care needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

People received personalised support that was responsive to their individual needs. Each person had an up to date and personalised care plan, which set out how their care and support needs should be met by staff. This meant people were supported by staff who knew them well and understood their needs, preferences and interests. Staff encouraged people to actively participate in meaningful leisure activities that reflected their social interests and to maintain relationships with people that mattered to them.

The managers provided good l