Heathcote

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment, and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. 

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care,well-being, and communication needs with them.

Pre-admission assessments and visits to the home helped to determine if this was the right service for people and the manager was aware of the limitations of the service in terms of its environment. Staff worked hard to support people’s well-being and independence.

The people we spoke with were mostly local and knew the home sometimes through recommendations and it was important for people to retain local connections.

Care plans were reviewed and showed us that adaptations where possible were made to help support people’s independence and safety.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People’s care plans included goals and objectives and they were supported to,‘live well.’ A key worker system meant a named member of staff supported people to ensure they had all they needed and the member of staff could follow up things on their behalf.

Policies in line with best practice guided staffs’actions and the manager was proactive in ensuring her staff were adequately trained and assessed as competent.

The provider always worked well across teams and services to support people. They shared thorough assessments of people’s needs when they moved between different services, so people only needed to tell their story once.

Staffing levels were consistent across the service, with minimal reliance on agency staff, which supported continuity and strong relationships between staff and people using the service. Staff told us they loved their jobs and showed genuine affection for those they were supporting. At Heathcote there was an integrated team where staff worked across roles to ensure people’s needs were prioritised. Examples included the chef interacting with people after meals to get to know their likes and dislikes and changing the menu accordingly. The domestic staff supporting at mealtimes where needed and carrying out activities with people. The registered manager on the morning of the inspection was administering medicines to support care staff so they could carry out personal care. Staff spoken with said, ‘We are one big family and we help each other.’ There was genuine harmony in the home.

The daily notes clearly showed how the staff worked in unison with other agencies to ensure people received holistic care. Care plans were holistic documents and shared and discussed with people and their families when appropriate. People’s consent was recorded for information sharing purposes and the home complied with data protection.

Consistent support was provided via the GP service, and the registered manager had developed strong links with other services to ensure people's health care needs were met. Additionally, the registered manager worked with other resources such as local colleges to maximise support for the service whilst also giving opportunities for people to gain experience in adult social care.

The provider supported people to manage their health and well-being to maximise their independence, choice, and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Relatives told us people ate well and had put on weight in a safe and appropriate way. Weights were monitored and showed most people had healthy body mass index and where people had unintentional weight loss this was closely monitored, escalated to a health professional and advice, food supplements and fortification offered. Staff recorded people’s nutritional intake. We found fluid records for some people were low putting people at risk of dehydration. We discussed with the provider and were confident this was a recording issue, rather than a practice issue.

Staff handovers recorded discussions about changes in people’s need and any actions required. Notes showed regular input from the GP and district nurses.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People received good outcomes of care as staff were attentive and knew people well so immediately recognised if someone was feeling unwell or had a change in need. This was addressed through regular access to health services such as chiropody and dental care. District nurses and the local GP had built up a close rapport with the home.

The provider had clear policies and procedures governing its care practices and these were closely monitored.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The home was not restrictive, and we saw people were living as independently as they were able to be. For example, we observed people accessing the garden independently and although people could be prone to falls staff were supervising from a distance and people at risk of falls had personal pendants.

We asked staff about the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and they confirmed they had received training and understood its practical application. For example, staff told us where a person might struggle to decide, they would guide them and give them time, show them the object, lay a choice of clothes out, or show them different food options. They suggested where more complex decisions were needed, they would discuss with family and, or health care professionals who could act in their best interest where authorised to.

Care plans logged details of relatives who had power of attorney, gainful consent was sought and only one person was subject to a deprivation of liberties safeguard (DoLS).The application was pending and once approved would help ensure the person’s right were upheld. Their needs were kept under regular review, and they were receiving safe and appropriate care.