You are here

Heathcotes (Oadby) Requires improvement

We are carrying out a review of quality at Heathcotes (Oadby). We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 2 August 2019

About the service

Heathcotes (Oadby) is a residential care home providing personal care to eight people at the time of the inspection. The service specialises in supporting people who have learning disabilities, autism, Asperger’s syndrome and challenging behaviour.

The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to eight people. Seven people lived in the main building and one person lived in a self-contained flat joined to the main building. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

There were not always enough care staff to safely meet people’s assessed support needs. People did not always receive the 1:1 support that they required. This also limited the opportunities for people to go out and engage in activities in the local community.

People on specialised diets were not always supported to eat and drink safely or maintain a balanced diet. This placed them at increased risk of harm.

People were not receiving person centred support that was appropriate, and which met their needs and preferences. Some people required a clear structure to their day activities and this was not always provided by the care staff. Independent living skill activities were not effectively planned and co-ordinated.

People were not always supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives.

Care staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. However, not all conditions relating to authorised deprivation of liberty had been met for one of the people who lived at the care home.

The registered manager had a quality assurance system in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service. However, this was not being fully, or effectively, used to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided to people.

People, and their relatives, told us the registered manager was approachable but that complaints and concerns were not always dealt with formally and in line with the provider’s complaints procedure.

Care staff had not all received the training necessary to meet people’s individual needs.

The service didn’t always apply the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

People were supported to maintain links with their families. However, it was not always clear whether the arrangements in place for transport were in people's best interests. Following the inspection, the provider confirmed that people could choose to pay for access to the care home vehicle or could be supported to use public transport instead.

People told us that they felt safe living in the care home and that the care staff were kind. However there were occasions when one person’s dignity was not always maintained by the way they were supported to dress.

People were supported to access community healthcare support, and had health action plans in place, although urgent healthcare advice had not always been sought by care staff when needed.

People’s communication needs were understood, and accessible information was available in the care home.

People had personalised their bedrooms and the communal areas had a homely feel. The care home had a sensory room and an en

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 2 August 2019

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 2 August 2019

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 2 August 2019

The service was not always caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 2 August 2019

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 2 August 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.