Field House Residential Care Home for the Elderly

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Comprehensive assessments were completed before admission and updated regularly. Relatives told us they felt their family members’ needs had been carefully considered and continued to be met as things changed. A family member told us, “[Relative] doesn’t really speak anymore, so they [staff] spend time trying to work out [relative’s] needs. They are soft and approachable all the time.” Another family member told us about how their relative’s care plan was continually reviewed and updated as their needs changed. “I do know what is in the [care] plan; they are really open and I can ask anything – I think it’s definitely tailored for [name]’s needs and they tweak it weekly.” This showed assessments were not a one‑off event but informed ongoing care planning.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Care records included up-to-date nutrition and hydration guidance, supporting staff to meet people’s needs effectively. Care plans and daily notes demonstrated a clear understanding of dietary frameworks, including the International Dysphagia Diet Standardising Initiative (IDDSI), ensuring safe and appropriate nutrition. The care planning system also identified risks such as if a person may have a higher risk of falls or require support to maintain skin integrity. Collaboration with healthcare professionals was evident, with timely interventions supporting people’s wellbeing.

Following the publication of national research into the link between caffeine and falls risk, the registered manger had sought to promote decaffeinated beverages in the home. This had led to a reduction in the number of falls occurring.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

There was a collaborative approach to planning and coordinating people’s care and treatment. Regular handover discussions and team meetings ensured information was shared amongst the team. We found staff had established positive working relationships with partner agencies, cooperating efficiently to achieve the best possible outcomes for people. Referrals and requests for professional advice were made promptly whenever concerns arose. Documented evidence confirmed staff followed the guidance provided by healthcare professionals.

One healthcare professional told us, that the provider was “professional, cooperative and dedicated to providing good care for its residents.” They told us, “The positive working relationship between the home and us supports the delivery of safe, effective, and patient centred care. It is a pleasure to work alongside [registered manager] and her team.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Evidence in care plans and daily care records confirmed people had access to local healthcare services and interventions were well documented. Staff used a range of monitoring tools to help them identify any changes to a person’s health and well-being. This included food and fluid monitoring. A relative told us, “The doctor comes in every Tuesday, and they will call me and let me know of any changes. They are really on the ball with all medication, and I am really happy with the attention here”.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Relatives and professionals reported positive outcomes for people, including feeling safe, settled, and well supported. The provider consistently monitored outcomes and used feedback to improve care and quality of life. Regular reviews and audits were completed, and feedback from people and relatives informed changes and improvements. The registered manager was proactive in identifying where improvements could be made in the home and taking any action required. For example, a focused piece of work had been completed to improve hydration within the home. This had led to significant improvements in people’s fluid intake over a sustained period of time.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. The provider had systems and processes that ensured the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was followed effectively, to support people who lacked capacity to make specific decisions about their care. Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were completed following the principles of the MCA, to ensure decisions made on behalf of people were made lawfully.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and understood its principles. We observed staff offering choices to people and sought their consent before providing support. Care plans reinforced the need to always ask for consent. A relative told us, “They [staff] talk to [name] all the time, even when I am there; they ask what [name] would like and explain what they are doing’" Another family member said, “The staff will speak to [name] and explain what they are going to do and why, even if [name] does not always understand.”