You are here

Heathfield House Nursing Home Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 27 July 2018

We undertook an unannounced inspection of Heathfield House Nursing Home on 12 July 2018. People in nursing homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service is registered to provide nursing care for up 40 to older people, many of whom have dementia. On the day of our inspection 32 people were living at the home.

At our last inspection in June 2017 we found people did not always receive their medicine as prescribed. Records relating the administration of medicines were not always accurate and some records relating to measures to reduce identified risks were not accurate or up to date. Risk management plans were not always in place. At this inspection we found significant improvements had been made.

Risk assessments were carried out and promoted positive risk taking, which enabled people to live their lives as they chose. People received their medicines safely. Records relating to risks and medicines were accurate and up to date.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were safe. There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and staff had time to spend with people. People’s nutritional needs were met and staff supported people to maintain a healthy diet. Where people had specific dietary needs, these were met.

The service provided support in a caring way. Staff supported people with kindness and compassion and went the extra mile to provide support at a personal level. Staff knew people well, respected them as individuals and treated them with dignity whilst emotional support. People and their relatives, were fully involved in decisions about their care needs and the support they required to meet those individual needs.

There was a positive culture at the service that valued people, relatives and staff and promoted a caring ethos that put people at the forefront of everything they did.

People continued to receive effective care from staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them and meet their needs. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the procedures in the service supported this practice. People were supported to access health professionals when needed and staff worked closely with people's GPs to ensure their health and well-being was monitored.

People had access to information about their care and staff supported people in their preferred method of communication.

The service continued to be responsive to people's needs and ensured people were supported in a personalised way. People's changing needs were responded to promptly. People had access to a variety of activities that met their individual needs.

The registered manager monitored the quality of the service and looked for continuous improvement. There was a clear vision to deliver high-quality care and support and promote a positive culture that was person-centred, open, inclusive and empowering which achieved good outcomes for people.

Inspection areas



Updated 27 July 2018

The service was safe.

There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people�s needs.

People told us they felt safe. Staff knew how to identify and raise concerns.

Risks to people were managed and assessments were in place to manage the risk and keep people safe. People received their medicines as prescribed.



Updated 27 July 2018

The service was effective.

People�s needs were assessed and care planned to ensure the care met their needs.

People were supported by staff who had the training and knowledge to support them effectively.

Staff received support and supervision and had access to further training and development.

Staff had been trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and understood and applied its principles



Updated 27 July 2018

The service was caring.

Staff were kind, compassionate and respectful and treated people and their relatives with dignity and respect.

Staff gave people the time to express their wishes and respected the decisions they made. People were involved in their care.

The service promoted people�s independence.



Updated 27 July 2018

The service was responsive.

Care plans were personalised and gave clear guidance for staff on how to support people.

People knew how to raise concerns and were confident action would be taken.

People were treated as individuals and their diverse needs respected.



Updated 27 July 2018

The service was well- led.

The service had systems in place to monitor the quality of service.

The service shared learning and looked for continuous improvement.

There was a whistle blowing policy in place that was available to staff around the service. Staff knew how to raise concerns