You are here

Heatherside House Care Centre Inadequate

We are carrying out a review of quality at Heatherside House Care Centre. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 12 March 2020

About the service: The service provides care and support for up to 25 younger and older adults with a diagnosis of learning disability and/or autism. Some people also have sensory impairments and/or physical disabilities.

Heatherside House Care Centre is in a secluded location which is geographically isolated. The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It is registered for the support of up to 25 people. There were 18 people living at the service at the time of the inspection. Other people also used the service for respite care. This is larger than current best practice guidance.

The service had not been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. The outcomes for people did not fully reflect the principles and values of Registering the Right Support for the following reasons: People did not live in a service where a culture of enablement, independence, choice and inclusion enabled them to maximise their human rights and empowered them to be valued stakeholders in the service they lived in. People did not experience person centred care which was tailored to their individual needs.

People’s experience of using this service:

Information to support people with their behaviour or mood was not always available, comprising enough detail or followed by staff.

Information recorded by staff was not routinely used to learn lessons and improve the support people received and the outcomes they experienced.

Recruitment checks had been completed on new staff members. New staff had completed an induction however, staff’s induction records had not been completed fully.

People’s needs had not all been assessed. Support was not always delivered in line with best practice.

People enjoyed the food but were not routinely involved in shopping for food. People’s preferences for meals were sought each week but often people made no choice. The reasons for this were not reviewed to improve people’s ability to contribute. People were not always provided with communication tools to help express their views.

The registered manager had not ensured the service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Conditions on people’s DoLS authorisations had not been met. Staff were recording people’s consent more frequently, but people had not consented to some aspects of their care.

No assessment of the environment had been completed to identify adaptations that would enable the service to better meet people’s needs or align the service more closely with the principles of registering the right support.

Staff were mostly up to date with their training but had not received training in areas relevant to the people they supported, such as learning disability or autism.

People’s health needs were supported by staff and people received their medicines as prescribed. People were not enabled to have as much control as possible over their medicines.

People were not always treated or described in a dignified way by staff.

People were not always involved in creating or reviewing their care plans. People’s care plans did not describe how people could be empowered to develop skills in the home or community or increase their independence. Staff were not routinely encouraging people to do this following an agreed plan of action.

There were not always enough staff available for people to receive person centred care. People spent most of their time in the service and there was a lack of opportunities that had been tailored to people’s individual interests and preferences, for people to engage with. Records showed people spent a lot of time in their room, sleeping, wandering or watching TV. Staff did not routinely support people to broaden their experiences to make informed choices about how they spent their time. People still did not have access to education or work opportunities, or support to develop ski

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 12 March 2020

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 12 March 2020

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 12 March 2020

The service was not always caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 12 March 2020

The service was not responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.



Updated 12 March 2020

The service was not well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.