Field Farm House Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the service management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.

This service scored 62 (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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities. People, relatives and staff told us they felt supported by the management team. The manager demonstrated they understood the importance of gathering and listening to people and their relative’s views on the service.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders were involved in management online groups and meetings to share information. All relatives and staff we spoke with told us the management team were supportive, open and inclusive. One staff member told us, “Management team are supportive, you are not afraid to say want you need or want, they are flexible and understanding if there is a problem, we work well as a team”.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff had opportunities to make suggestions and contribute to the development of the service at staff meetings, surveys and through the provider's supervision procedure. People had the opportunity to share their views of the service through regular resident’s meetings. Staff told us they felt able to raise concerns and these would be listened to. One staff member told us, “I’ve never had to raise a concern, but would feel confident if needed, I would go direct to my manager and feel confident they would put measures into place”. The registered manager understood their responsibilities under the duty of candour. The duty of candour is to be open and transparent, and it sets out specific guideline's providers must follow if things go wrong with care and treatment. The provider had a whistleblowing policy in place.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. The service promoted an inclusive and fair culture, and all staff we spoke with told us they were treated equally and were happy to work as a team. They told us there was good teamwork at the service and staff worked well together. Staff had received training in equality and diversity.

The service did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate. The provider did not have effective environmental or Infection Prevention and Control checks in place to identify and drive improvements. For example, regular audits had not identified the concerns we found with the safety of the building and the cleanliness of the home. The registered manager acknowledged our findings and started to take action during the assessment to mitigate some of the risks.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. Relatives told us they were kept informed of any changes to their loved one’s care. Peoples care plans demonstrated where referrals had been made, and where people received follow up appointments. The majority of external professional’s told us they worked in good partnership with the service.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research. Although there have been some improvements made since our last assessment, further improvement is needed to ensure the service has an embedded robust governance system which identifies shortfalls of safe care delivery and treatment.