The Fields Care Home

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 10 August 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of assessment 22nd June to 1st July 2026.

The Fields care Home is a residential care home registered to support 24 older people. At the time of our assessment, there were 21 people living at the service, some of whom were living with dementia.

At this assessment we found 2 breaches of the legal requirements in relation to premises and equipment and good governance.

The provider did not have effective governance systems in place to monitor, assess and improve the quality and safety of the service. Quality assurance processes had not consistently identified or addressed concerns relating to care records, environmental safety, staff support and compliance with legal requirements.

Care plans were not consistently reviewed and, in some cases, lacked important information relating to people's needs, preferences and identified risks. This meant staff not always have had access to accurate and up-to-date information to support people safely and in accordance with their wishes.

Environmental audits were not sufficiently robust and had failed to identify risks associated with window safety. As a result, opportunities to assess and mitigate potential environmental hazards had been missed.

Records demonstrated that consent had not been consistently sought or documented for all people using the service. This meant the provider could not always evidence that care and treatment decisions had been made in accordance with people's wishes, best interests, or the requirements of relevant legislation.

Arrangements for supporting and monitoring staff were also ineffective. Staff did not consistently receive regular supervision or annual appraisals, limiting opportunities to review performance, identify learning and development needs, and ensure staff were appropriately supported to fulfil their roles.

In addition, formal meetings for people using the service, their relatives and staff were not held consistently. This reduced opportunities for people to provide feedback, share their experiences and influence the development of the service. Consequently, the provider could not demonstrate that feedback was routinely sought, listened to and used to drive improvement.