Field House Residential Care Home for the Elderly

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Staff and managers were committed to providing support which was tailored to meet people’s individual choices and preferences. Staff had a good knowledge of each person’s history, communication style, and support needs. This understanding enabled them to provide responsive, person‑centred care as people’s needs and preferences changed. A relative told us, “I think in general they know [family member] very well. They know their weakness and strengths. I think they do take time to talk. They know a lot about [family member]’s life and history.” People and relatives were engaged in the process of care planning and reviewing their care plans. A relative said that their family members care plan “is regularly reviewed with one of us and we make suggestions and make sure things are working okay.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People told us they were happy with the care they received and felt supported by staff who knew them well. Care plans contained person-specific information about what mattered to people, including their routines, preferences, and important relationships.

Staff received training relevant to the needs of people they supported. There was evidence people were supported to attend health and social care appointments and that staff coordinated with other professionals to ensure continuity across services. Information about other agencies involved in each person’s care was documented in their records, supporting effective multi-agency working. One professional told us, “[Staff] knowledge and understanding of the residents and their individual needs is very good and contributes positively to the overall quality of care provided.”

Relatives told us their family members were supported by a consistent team of staff who knew and understood their needs. A relative told us, “I know them and they know who we are and who we have come to see – If we have any problems, they are on to it quickly; we usually see the same staff.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The registered manager understood their responsibilities under the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). Staff explained options in ways people could understand, using plain language and visual aids where needed. People and relatives told us they knew how to raise concerns and felt confident action would be taken. All the people we spoke with were positive about the home and stated they were kept informed.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. Feedback was gained in a variety of ways including relative and resident meetings and feedback surveys. There was a complaints policy in place, and all concerns were recorded and investigated. Learning was shared with the staff team, and the registered manager promoted a culture where complaints were treated as opportunities to reflect and improve.

People told us they felt comfortable expressing their views and that staff took their preferences seriously. A relative told is, “They [staff] are always willing to listen…I can absolutely raise anything with staff, can ask for them to try something different…and they will always listen.” Relatives described the manager as approachable and responsive, and said any issues raised were addressed promptly. This was reflected in the care records we reviewed.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff worked to accommodate individual preferences, such as meal choices and adapted activities. Care plans detailed people’s equipment requirements to promote their independence. There were adapted facilities such as hoists, toilet and bathing equipment, and adapted chairs to support people to overcome physical challenges.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. For example, staff completed training in equality and diversity to understand and reduce inequalities or prejudices that affected outcomes for people. The registered manager ensured peoples’ social and healthcare needs were fully considered and met. Relatives expressed confidence in the service, saying their loved ones were happy and their needs met.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. People’s wishes and preferences for end-of-life care were discussed with them and their loved ones and clearly recorded in care plans. Staff demonstrated commitment to respecting these choices and maintaining up-to-date plans. A member of staff told us, “We take end of life care very seriously. We give the best care we can. [Registered manager] has high standards about this. It is very important and we take great care.” Relatives told us that the home discussed end of life care with them in a sensitive way and listened and to people’s wishes. A relative told us, “I know all about her care plan…they [staff] respect what she wants towards the end.”