Field Farm House Residential Home

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. Most relatives told us they were involved in reviews and all said they were kept updated with any changes to peoples care and treatment. One relative told us,” They (relative) are always well dressed and well-coordinated which is important to them; it shows respect for them and understanding of what’s important to them. They’re looking after them as well as we would like to have looked after them”. Care plans reflected people's interests. likes and dislikes and described tasks they liked to do themselves. For example, one person enjoyed helping with the laundry and completed different laundry duties with staff. The person told us they enjoyed this task, had learnt new skills, and felt part of the team.

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’s care and treatment was well co-ordinated, documented and shared between the service and healthcare professionals. Appropriate referrals had been made where people needed them. The registered manager liaised with healthcare professionals regularly, and information had been updated in people’s care plans. We saw evidence of continued communication where people had attended appointments. Most external professionals spoke positively about the continuity of care provided by the service. One person described the service as “extremely good” and told us, “The continuity provided is incredibly important for both us and the residential home. Field Farm House also have a good understanding of the community services and how they would use them and readily do in an appropriate way”.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. We observed staff using pictorial aids to support people to make choices over their meals. Relatives spoke positively about how the service provided them with information. One relative said, “I like it that every week they send a link so you can see what they have been doing”. Another relative told us, “They send us a feedback form every year asking for any suggestions on changes we would like to see; they did ask if any relatives would like to have a group meeting”. The provider was meeting the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). People’s communication needs were understood and supported. This was demonstrated in their care plans which were detailed and bespoke to the person.

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. All relatives we spoke with told us they knew where to raise a complaint and would speak directly with the registered managers if needed. One relative told us, “It’s a first-class service and we have no issues. We have a very good rapport with registered managers if I have any concerns or questions about anything I just go to them, and it’s dealt with”. The provider sent out annual surveys to gather people’s feedback, the information was then reviewed, and a response of actions was shared with people and relatives in a “you said, we did” document. Some examples of these were changes to how personal laundry items were labelled and apologies had been given when personal items had been mislaid. There was a complaints policy in place. Staff recorded complaints and concerns received and documented actions taken in response to these.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Managers and staff told us they would support people to access care, support and treatment when people needed it. This was evidenced in people’s care plans. The service worked in partnership with other professionals to meet people’s needs. Referrals were made to other external professionals when required, for example the In-reach team, District Nurse’s, Occupational Therapists and GPs. Most external professionals said the service made appropriate referrals in a timely manner, and the information shared was accurate and informative.

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. We saw bespoke plans which supported people’s protected characteristics, we discussed this with the provider to consider risk assessments were completed to safeguard people when they accessed the community independently. Staff had access to the providers policies and completed mandatory training courses which safeguarded people and their protected characteristics. Protected characteristics are specific attributes safeguarded against discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. These include age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.

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. There were systems in place to record people’s advanced wishes, where they chose to discuss them. These included funeral arrangements and people’s choices regarding resuscitation in the event of emergency treatment.