You are here

Heronlea Residential Home Good

We are carrying out a review of quality at Heronlea Residential Home. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Reports


Inspection carried out on 19 January 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Heronlea is a residential care home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to 13 people.

We found the following examples of good practice:

The service was proactive in closing doors to visitors prior to the first national lockdown to help keep the people who lived at the service safe.

The service was proactive in securing good stocks of personal protective equipment (PPE) including shoe protectors and overalls, above what was required by guidance. There were good systems in place to ensure appropriate use.

People who lived at the service with dementia who walked with a purpose were cohorted in a specific lounge when they tested positive for COVID-19, with staff support to keep them safe.

One of the entrance halls was changed to make a suitable area, with a plastic screen, for relatives to visit people who lived in the service, safely.

Inspection carried out on 23 May 2017

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 23 May 2017, and was unannounced.

Heronlea is a residential care home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to 13 people. At the time of our inspection, there were 11 people using the service.

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.

The range of activities available were not always appropriate or stimulating for people living with dementia. They did not meet people’s individual or specialist needs.

Staffing level arrangements were being reviewed by the registered manager to ensure they met the needs of people using the service at all times. Staffing levels were observed to be adequate throughout the day, and staff were available when people needed support.

People were supported to eat sufficient amounts and maintain a balanced diet. However, improvements were needed in the lunchtime experience for people, and we have made a recommendation about this.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff understood the need to obtain consent when providing care.

Staff respected people's privacy and dignity and interacted with people in a kind and caring manner.

Risk assessments were in place in respect of people’s care, treatment and daily living.

Staff knew about how to safeguard people from abuse and what to do if they suspected abuse was occurring. Safe recruitment procedures were in place, and staff had undergone recruitment checks before they started work to ensure they were suitable for the role.

There was a complaints procedure in place for people to access if they needed to.

People were protected by safe processes in place in respect of the storage, administration and recording of medicines. Staff received training and their competence was periodically assessed.

There were systems and processes in place to support the safety and quality of the service.

Inspection carried out on 17 & 19 October 2014

During a routine inspection

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 17 and 19 October 2014. This meant that the provider did not know that we were coming. It was carried out by one inspector.

Heronlea Residential Home provides care and accommodation for up to 13 older people who are living with dementia. On the day of our inspection there were 12 people living at this home.

This service is required to have a registered manager in day to day charge of the home. 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. The provider is also the registered manager.

People and their relatives were very complimentary about the support provided by the service. We could see that people were very relaxed around the staff and in their environment. There was plenty of chatter and engagement.

The service benefitted from a stable staff group. However, robust recruitment procedures were in place that included staff completing induction training so that they knew what was expected of them. Training and development was encouraged and all but one of the staff team had a qualification in care.

Medicines were managed and administered safely and staff followed safe procedures. They received regular update training and frequent medication audits took place to ensure safe practices were followed.

The manager had knowledge of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). They understood DoLS and had made applications to apply with it. All applications were made lawfully and with the person’s best interest at the heart of the decision making. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard is where a person can be deprived of their liberties where it is deemed to be in their best interests or their own safety.

People were offered choices and encouraged to make as many decisions as they could around their daily living. Staff supported people to do this by showing people the choices open to them, including using simple sign language to help them better understand their options. Risk assessments were in place so that people could be as independent as possible whilst reducing risks to themselves.

Visitors and relatives told us that staff were very kind, attentive and caring. We observed staff empowering people in a way that encouraged their individual choices and preferences, so that they lived as they would prefer as far as possible.

Relatives were asked for their views on the quality of the service provided and people were spoken with to seek their opinions about daily living. People were involved in choosing the colours in the lounge when the room was re-decorated.

Inspection carried out on 3 June 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people and they told us they liked living at Heronlea and were very happy. One person said they would not want anything to change as they liked it as it was. The people said they could do as they wished and one person showed us the scarf they were knitting. We also observed people and saw they were relaxed and happy. We heard laughter during the day as staff spent time speaking with people and undertaking activities together.

We saw how the service ensured that they provided the care and treatment the person would want, by speaking with relatives, working beside people and using advocacy services as appropriate. Care records were clear and gave good information to staff.

The service had robust recruitment practices in place and all staff were given opportunities to attain a qualification in care. Staff felt well supported and had been trained sufficiently so that they could meet people's needs. No complaints had been received by the service and there was a complaints procedure in place that was being updated. Staff were aware of people's moods and changes so that any dissatisfaction with how they were being cared for would be identified and acted on.

Inspection carried out on 27 April 2012

During a routine inspection

We were unable to speak with most people using the service as many of them had been or continued to be unwell. We gathered evidence of people�s experiences of the service by reviewing comment cards, and speaking with relatives, advocates and visiting health professionals.

Visitors told us that the home was very good. One person said, �This is a home with a heart�. Another person said, �The best home there is�. Staff were described as, �Very good�. We were also told that the provider was very professional and that people could visit whenever they wished. All the comments received from relatives, advocates and visiting professionals were positive and supportive of the service, provider and staff.

We spoke briefly with one service user, who told us that the home was very good. We observed people resting in the lounges and they were comfortable and relaxed. We saw the interaction between staff and people using the service and this was warm, friendly and well paced so that the person had time to think and respond.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)