You are here

We are carrying out checks at Heatherwood Nursing Home using our new way of inspecting services. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 17 August 2015

We inspected Heatherwood Nursing Home on 24 June 2015. The inspection was unannounced.

Heatherwood Nursing Home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 22 adults who may also require nursing care. On the day of our inspection there were 20 people living in the home.

The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and shares the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law with the provider.’

At the time of our inspection, the home was in the process of refurbishment which had been ongoing for several months. We were concerned about the lack of security, as we were able to enter the home, wander around and speak to people for fifteen minutes before we found a member of staff. Since our inspection, the refurbishment of the entrance area has been completed and access to the home can only be gained via a staff controlled secure door entry system.

Staff had been trained in safeguarding adults. They knew how to recognise the signs of abuse and how to report any concerns. There were procedures and risk assessments in place that staff implemented to reduce the risk of harm to people.

The manager and staff understood the main principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People received their medicines safely and were adequately protected against the risk and spread of infection.

People were cared for by staff who were recruited through a thorough recruitment process. Appropriate checks were carried out on applicants before they began to work with people. The majority of staff were experienced care workers who had the skills, knowledge and experience to care for people safely.

There was a sufficient number of staff on duty to care for people safely and effectively. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and were supported by the management through relevant training, supervision and performance reviews.

People were satisfied with the care they received and told us they were treated with respect and kindness. Staff ensured people received a nutritious, balanced diet and people who required it were supported to eat their meals. People were happy with the quality of their meals and said they were given enough to eat and drink.

People felt involved in their care planning and in control of the care they received. There were a variety of activities for people to participate in within the home but some people felt that more could be done to support people to participate in activities outside the home.

People’s healthcare needs were met by suitably qualified staff. Regular checks were carried out to maintain people’s health and well-being. People also had access to healthcare professionals and staff liaised well with external healthcare providers. People were supported to plan their end of life care.

There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of care people received. People felt able to express their views and told us the management and staff were responsive to their complaints and comments.

We inspected Heatherwood Nursing Home on 24 June 2015. The inspection was unannounced.

Heatherwood Nursing Home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 22 adults who may also require nursing care. On the day of our inspection there were 20 people living in the home.

The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and shares the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law with the provider.’

At the time of our inspection, the home was in the process of refurbishment which had been ongoing for several months. We were concerned about the lack of security, as we were able to enter the home, wander around and speak to people for fifteen minutes before we found a member of staff. Since our inspection, the refurbishment of the entrance area has been completed and access to the home can only be gained via a staff controlled secure door entry system.

Staff had been trained in safeguarding adults. They knew how to recognise the signs of abuse and how to report any concerns. There were procedures and risk assessments in place that staff implemented to reduce the risk of harm to people.

The manager and staff understood the main principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People received their medicines safely and were adequately protected against the risk and spread of infection.

People were cared for by staff who were recruited through a thorough recruitment process. Appropriate checks were carried out on applicants before they began to work with people. The majority of staff were experienced care workers who had the skills, knowledge and experience to care for people safely.

There was a sufficient number of staff on duty to care for people safely and effectively. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and were supported by the management through relevant training, supervision and performance reviews.

People were satisfied with the care they received and told us they were treated with respect and kindness. Staff ensured people received a nutritious, balanced diet and people who required it were supported to eat their meals. People were happy with the quality of their meals and said they were given enough to eat and drink.

People felt involved in their care planning and in control of the care they received. There were a variety of activities for people to participate in within the home but some people felt that more could be done to support people to participate in activities outside the home.

People’s healthcare needs were met by suitably qualified staff. Regular checks were carried out to maintain people’s health and well-being. People also had access to healthcare professionals and staff liaised well with external healthcare providers. People were supported to plan their end of life care.

There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of care people received. People felt able to express their views and told us the management and staff were responsive to their complaints and comments.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 17 August 2015

The service was safe.

The provider had policies and procedures to minimise the risk of abuse to people and these were effectively implemented by staff. Risks to people were regularly assessed and managed according to their care plan.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to keep people safe. Medicines were effectively managed. Staff followed procedures which helped to protect people from the risk and spread of infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 17 August 2015

The service was effective.

Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver the care people required. Staff were appropriately supported by the provider to carry out their roles effectively through relevant training and regular supervision.

Staff understood the main provisions of the Mental Capacity Act and how it applied to people in their care.

People were given a sufficient amount to eat and drink. People received care and support which assisted them to maintain their health. The service worked well with external healthcare providers.

Caring

Good

Updated 17 August 2015

The service was caring.

Staff were kind and caring. We observed that people were treated with dignity and respect and this was confirmed by people we spoke with.

People felt able to express their views.

Some staff had been trained in end of life care and people were supported to plan their end of life care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 17 August 2015

The service was responsive.

People were involved in their care planning and felt in control of the care and support they received. The care people received met their needs. There were a variety of activities people were able to participate in inside the home.

People knew how to make suggestions and complaints about the care they received and felt their comments would be acted on.

Well-led

Good

Updated 17 August 2015

The service was well-led.

There was a clear management structure in place at the home which people living in the home and staff understood. Staff knew their roles and accountabilities within the structure.

People living in the home, their relatives and staff felt able to approach the management and provider about their concerns.

There were systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of care people received.