The Fieldings

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

Peoples needs and rights were supported. Peoples care and treatment was effective due to their health, care, well-being, and communication needs being assessed with them. Peoples care plans are kept up to date with any assessments completed in a timely manner. Staff were aware people’s preferences and respected these in a person-centred way. People were aware of their rights around care and treatment. Staff have good knowledge of the mental capacity act, including capacity and consent. Staff were aware of how to support someone with fluctuating capacity.

This service scored 58 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were confident that their individual needs had been appropriately assessed and were fully understood by staff. This included a holistic review of their physical, mental and communication needs; to enable them to receive support with the best possible outcomes. Documentation showed us that people had been involved in planning their care. Some people had declined to be involved in planning their care, and this has been documented and respected.

Staff understood people’s individual needs, and how to help them have the best outcomes.

Staff recorded people’s important care needs in a summary document. This document could be taken to an emergency hospital admission so hospital staff would know how to support them in the most effective way. People’s needs were assessed before they arrived at The Fieldings. This meant appropriate support was provided on arrival to the care home. People’s care needs were then routinely reviewed, including involvement with external health and social care professionals if needed. Where required, the service used nationally recognised tools to assess risk. For example, the service used the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) to assess someone’s risk of malnutrition. This tool found the person was at risk of malnutrition, so the staff changed how they supported the person at mealtimes. The person then gained weight with this additional support. The tool was then re-completed and showed the person’s risk of malnutrition had reduced.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

People reported that staff supported them to make their own decisions and plan their own routines. People told us that staff gave them privacy and always asked for consent. One person said, “Staff do knock on the door and respect my privacy. I have had an issue with a resident knocking on my door, but the staff supported me with this.”

Staff understood consent and how to support people who found it difficult to make decisions. Where a person found it difficult to make decisions, the service had followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, by documenting the person’s ability to make a decision (by use of a mental capacity assessment) and then planning what would be in the person’s best interests. Some people could make unwise choices but had the ability to understand the risk related to these choices. Staff supported people to live in a way that they chose.

Processes were in place to support people to make their own decisions. For example, an easy-to-read document had been produced to support people to make decisions about their medicines. The service involved people’s relatives or paid advocates to support them where possible. The use of advocates was clearly recorded, so staff knew when a person received advocacy support.