Field View

“Staff understood their responsibility to report and act on safeguarding concerns, should they suspect a person was at risk of abuse or experiencing abuse. The registered manager reported safeguarding concerns to the local authority safeguarding team and to CQC. However, we identified two instances where this had not taken place. People were not injured and had not come to harm, but best practice would have been to report any concerns. The registered managers acknowledged this and noted for future occasions.”

“People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that nobody was subject to a DoLS authorisation. Staff and management worked within the MCA and people were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions and had choice, control and freedom over their lives.”

“Risks were identified, mitigated and regularly monitored to ensure changes to risk assessments were not required. However, we identified cluttered areas which could impede evacuation in the event of a fire. The provider addressed this whilst we were onsite. Risks relating to infection prevention and control required some review. The environment was safe and suitable for the people who used the service who accessed all areas of the service independently. Maintenance staff carried out regular safety checks to ensure systems were working correctly and to keep the building in a good state of repair.”

“People’s needs were assessed prior to them coming to live at Field View and regularly reviewed. Some care plans were not sufficiently detailed. The provider has begun a review of care plans. Health needs were monitored and appropriate referrals to healthcare professionals were made when needed. People consented to their care and care plans reflected this.”

“Care was person centred and people were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. People received the care they needed whilst their independence was maintained as much as possible. Staff were kind and relationships between staff and the people they were supporting and caring for, were very good. Care was unhurried and the atmosphere was calm and happy throughout the service. Staff were very positive about the service and proud of the…”