Teamcare Limited t/a Highcliffe Residential Home

Ratings

• Overall

  Requires improvement

• Safe

  Inadequate

• Effective

  Requires improvement

• Caring

  Good

• Responsive

  Good

• Well-led

  Requires improvement

Our view of the service

Date of assessment: 5 May to 10 June 2025. Teamcare Limited t/a Highcliffe Residential Home provides accommodation for people who require personal care. The home supports up to 24 older people, at the time of our assessment, 23 people lived at the home.

At the last rated inspection in 2017 the home was rated good. At this inspection we found standards had declined and the home was now in breach of legal regulations for; consent, safe care and treatment, safeguarding, premises and equipment and governance.

Incidents were not adequately reviewed, and appropriate actions were not taken to help prevent reoccurrence. Information was not always gathered about people as they moved into the service, to help support safe transitions. Safeguarding systems were not effective, and the home did not work in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) when people were deprived of their liberty. Staff did not have access to adequate information about risks to people’s health or wellbeing, including for those people who communicated a need, emotion or distress. There were several gaps in staff training. Some areas of the home environment were unsafe, and we found concerns relating to security, fire safety and infection prevention and control. Medicines were not managed safely.

Care plans lacked key information about people and records were not completed consistently to show people received support in line with their assessed needs. Staff were not involved in daily handover meetings and gave some negative feedback about communication amongst the team. Assessment tools were not used consistently to monitor people for signs of deterioration. Consent was not sought in line with MCA principles, and staff did not have access to information about people’s capacity.

We could not be assured people’s care was person-centred because information in care plans did not fully reflect their individual needs and preferences. There was limited evidence to show people and their relatives were involved in making decisions when people’s needs changed. People who had a terminal diagnosis or were at end of life, did not always have an associated care plan to ensure their wishes were recorded and shared with the team.

Leaders at the home were not aware of the key issues and risks at the home. Staff did not always feel they could speak up and opportunities for them to do so were limited. Governance systems were inadequate and oversight was poor. The provider and registered manager had not always used information, recommendations from external agencies or feedback from staff to drive improvement at the home.

However, the home worked closely with healthcare partners and staff encouraged people to improve their mobility. Staff were kind and caring and treated people like individuals. There was a weekly timetable of activities and people were supported to have choice and control over their lives. Staff felt valued and well supported and spoke positively about the registered manager and their colleagues. Staff were flexible and people enjoyed good continuity of care. People had access to information about the service and were given the opportunity to feed back about their experiences. The home was adapted to meet the needs of people living there. There was a positive culture which ensured people were treated with compassion, dignity and respect. The registered manager worked in partnership with other services and agencies to seek advice and share learning.

We have taken regulatory action against the registered manager; we have published this information on our website and have asked the provider for an action plan in response to concerns found at this assessment.

People's experience of this service

People and their relatives spoke positively about the staff, and the care people received. Comments included, “The staff are all very kind and have plenty of time for everybody,” “[Staff] are kind, they watch [person] to make sure they are safe and talk to them. They have a good relationship with [person]” and, “[Staff] are very attentive.” People confirmed staff respected their privacy and treat them with dignity.

Relatives gave examples of how the service helped people to stay safe by managing risks to their mobility, health and wellbeing. One relative said, “[Person] is wheelchair bound and can’t walk. They have 2 staff to help them in and out of bed. They have a crash mat by the bed and a buzzer they can ring if they need help.” Another added, “Even after a short time, they can tell when [person] gets a bit down.” Others confirmed people had regular visits from the district nursing team or appointments with the GP when required.

People generally enjoyed the food available at the home and confirmed snacks were regularly provided. One person told us, “The food is excellent, a very good menu. We get fresh fruit and vegetables. We get plenty to eat.” Another added, “If you don’t like something on the menu, you can ask for something else.”

Relatives told us they were involved in the care planning process and were kept up to date about people’s health and care needs. A relative said, “I get updates when I come in. I pop into the office, and they give me a progress report.” People and relatives told us they knew how to give feedback and confirmed the registered manager was approachable if they needed to raise concerns.

Some people could not directly tell us about their experience, so we carried out observations of their care. There was a warm, welcoming atmosphere at the home, staff engaged with people positively, and we observed them to be attentive to people’s needs. We saw people were actively engaged in group activities and other individual hobbies and interests.

Whilst people we spoke with expressed, they were generally happy with their care, our assessment found elements of quality and safety did not meet the expected standards.