Archived: Heatherbank

At the time of our inspection there were 10 people residing at Heatherbank. On the day of our inspection we met and spoke with four people who used the service. We also met with the registered owners, three members of staff and the cleaner. Feedback from people who use the service was generally positive. They told us they were happy with the care and support provided at the home and felt the staff who worked there were kind and supportive. One person told us 'I like living here, it's my home. The staff are all very nice and supportive and I enjoy the food'. Another person told us 'I am happy living here, most people are very friendly. The staff are helpful and most of them make time for you'.

Since our last inspection the provider had improved some of the home's quality assurance systems but we remained concerned that accurate and appropriate records were not being maintained. This meant that people were not always protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment. We also found that the registered provider had not informed the Care Quality Commission of events they were required to notify us about.

At the time of our visit, there were eleven people using the service and we spoke with five of them. We also spoke with the registered provider, the registered manager, two care staff and the cleaner.

We found that the home was clean and there were no unpleasant odours. People told us there had been improvements with the environment. Comments included, 'it has brightened the place up a bit' and 'It's nice here, I'm well looked after. They've been doing some decorating here, they do keep it nice.' One person told us they had moved into a spare bedroom as theirs was being redecorated. Another person told us, 'Everything's fine. They've been redecorating; I think they're going to do my room as well. Staff are nice though, we get on well, I get on well with them. I'm quite happy.'

Since our last inspection, the provider's arrangements for supporting people to manage their finances had improved.

There were eleven people using the service at the time of our inspection and we spoke with seven of them. We also met with the registered owners and three members of staff.

People who were able to share their experiences of Heatherbank spoke positively about the service. Comments included, 'Matron really cares about us. I know it's a bit scruffy but we are really well looked after'. 'It's very nice here, the nurses are very efficient, the place runs like clockwork'. Another person told us, 'it's as good as it could be.'

Since our last inspection in March 2013, the provider had improved upon staff training but we were concerned that other actions to achieve compliance remained outstanding. There was an unpleasant odour in the home and parts of the premises were insufficiently maintained. People using the service were not fully informed about the costs of their care or treatment and the provider's arrangements for managing people's personal monies were not robust. We also found that accurate and appropriate records were not being maintained. This meant that people were not always protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment.

People who were able to communicate with us spoke positively about the care and support they received. People told us they enjoyed the meals in the home and found the staff to be helpful and attentive. Comments included, 'the carers are all very good', 'always helpful' and 'they treat us well.' People who did not have the capacity to share their views appeared relaxed and comfortable in their surroundings.

Since our last inspection in July 2012, the provider had taken some action to improve upon staff training and quality monitoring systems. At this inspection however we found that the provider was failing to comply with five essential standards relating to fees, safeguarding, infection control, the environment and quality assurance.

Information provided to people did not highlight the extra costs that might be payable. Financial records did not provide evidence that people's money was being managed appropriately. We raised concerns about the decor and cleanliness of the home. We found evidence to show that cleaning schedules were not effective and some areas of the home had an unpleasant odour. There were insufficient systems in place to identify and analyse incidents that resulted in or had the potential to result in harm to people using the service.