Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by National Autistic Society

Field View

Station Road, Rawcliffe, Goole, DN14 8QP

Requires improvementpublished 3 October 2023, 2 years ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Requires improvement
Risks were not always properly assessed, reviewed or reduced after incidents. Staffing, recruitment, safeguarding, infection control and medicines management were stronger areas.
Effective?
Requires improvement
Staff did not always understand the Mental Capacity Act or receive training for people's particular communication needs. People were supported with nutrition, healthcare and daily activities.
Caring?
Good
This key question was not inspected during this visit, so the report does not give a current rating for it.
Responsive?
Good
This key question was not inspected during this visit, so the report does not give a current rating for it.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
Quality checks did not identify important shortfalls, records were not always secure, and there had been no engagement to gather feedback from people and others. Staff were supported and worked well as a team.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, October 2023

Requires Improvement; inspectors found safer staffing and medicines, but risks, staff training and management oversight were not reliable enough.

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 25 July and 2 August 2023. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience observed care, spoke with relatives and staff, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.

The home had enough staff and medicines were managed safely. Staff knew people well, treated them kindly and helped them access healthcare, social activities and work. People were supported with food, drink and personal choices.

However, risks were not always properly assessed or reviewed. Some care records conflicted, staff did not always have training for people's specific needs, and the Mental Capacity Act was not consistently understood or applied. The home's quality checks had not found these problems.

The overall rating remains Requires Improvement. Safe and well-led were also Requires Improvement. Effective fell from Good to Requires Improvement. The report says the provider must send an action plan and that progress will be monitored.

What inspectors praised
  • Staffing and recruitment

    The home had recruited enough staff, reduced its use of agency workers and completed relevant checks before employment.

    The provider and registered manager had completed a review of recruitment and successfully recruited sufficient staff to meet the needs of people.from the report
  • Medicines

    Medicines were stored and given safely, and records were completed properly. This was an improvement since the previous inspection.

    Systems were in place to ensure the safe storage and administration of medicines. Medication records were completed appropriately.from the report
  • Food and daily choices

    People received enough food and drink in line with their preferences. They were involved in choosing and preparing meals.

    Staff supported people to be involved in choosing, preparing and cooking their own meals in their preferred way.from the report
  • Kind relationships

    Staff knew people well, spoke kindly and helped them make choices about their daily routines.

    Staff interacted with people positively. Staff spoke to people kindly and respectfully.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Unmanaged risks

    serious

    Some risk assessments were out of date or conflicted with care plans. Incident records did not always show what had been done to prevent the same problem happening again.

    The provider had failed to ensure risks were fully assessed, reviewed and mitigated against to ensure people’s safety and wellbeing.from the report
  • Restrictions and mental capacity

    needs fixing

    Staff and managers did not always understand what counted as a restrictive practice. Records did not always show why decisions were made for people or whether less restrictive options had been considered.

    The management and staff team were not always aware of what might constitute restrictive practice.from the report
  • Training for individual needs

    needs fixing

    Some staff had not received training linked to people's specific communication or support needs, including Makaton and first aid.

    Staff had not always received additional training in line with people's specific communication needs.from the report
  • Weak quality checks

    serious

    The home's audits did not identify missing records or training gaps. The provider remained in breach because it had not effectively monitored and improved quality and safety.

    The provider had continued to fail to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service and maintain secure and accurate records.from the report
  • Privacy and dignity

    needs fixing

    The report found that care was not always dignified or person-centred. The manager did not always consider how support affected people's privacy and dignity.

    The service did not always provide dignified care to people in line with the registered provider’s values.from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How are you now checking that every person's risk assessment and care plan agree and are updated after incidents?
  2. 02What training has each staff member completed for the specific communication, health and first aid needs of the person we are considering?
  3. 03How do you assess restrictions on access to rooms, areas or belongings, and how do you record best-interest decisions and less restrictive alternatives?
  4. 04What changes have you made to your quality audits so they identify missing records, training gaps and lessons from incidents?
  5. 05What action plan did you send to the CQC, and what progress has been made since this inspection?

This was an unannounced inspection initially covering Safe and Well-led, then expanded to Effective; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over into the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 October 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Field View

5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.

  1. October 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Field View

  2. December 2021Requires improvementdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. March 2020Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. July 2017Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. June 2015Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. October 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. April 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. February 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. December 2010

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 December 2010.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

Same provider

Other services run by National Autistic Society (The)

15 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.

Cherry Trees

Burnham-on-Sea, TA8
Good
Residential
Rated 3 years agocare home

Crossways

Mildenhall, IP28
Good
Residential
Rated 7 years agocare home

Fernery House

Burnham-on-Sea, TA8
Requires improvement
Residential
Rated 7 months agocare home
Nearby

Other care homes near Goole

Creykes Lodge

Goole, DN14 · 1.0 km
Good
Residential
Rated 6 years agocare home

Mansion House

Selby, YO8 · 3.7 km
Good
NursingDementia
Rated 6 years agocare home

The Goddards

Goole, DN14 · 3.8 km
Requires improvement
Residential
Rated 16 months agocare home

Wesley Place

Goole, DN14 · 4.3 km
Good
Residential
Rated 17 months agocare home