We carried out a review of the data available to us about Heatherdale Residential Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Heatherdale Residential Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The home was clean and tidy. There were ample supplies of PPE and staff had received training in infection control procedures to keep people safe.
Relatives were able to visit their family safely, including within the home and also in a newly built garden pod. The provider continued to encourage essential care giver status with relatives.
The registered manager told us the staff team had supported each other throughout the pandemic to maintain staffing levels without the need for agency staff.
Heatherdale Residential Home is a care home which provides care for up to 36 people. The service does not provide nursing care. Care is primarily provided to older people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 35 people using the service.
The service accommodates people across two floors, with communal lounges, dining rooms and bathing facilities. There is a secure enclosed garden for people and visitors to use.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People and relatives praised the management and staff for the quality and care of the service provided. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People's privacy, dignity and independence were maintained. There was a range of activities for people and their relatives to participate in and community involvement also reduced social isolation.
The service was clean and tidy with an ongoing programme of work planned to further modernise the building.
Medicines were administered to people as prescribed. Some minor issues with medicine recordings were either addressed on the day or confirmed as being addressed.
The management team were approachable. People told us they would have no hesitation in sharing their views. The quality of the service provided was monitored and any issues arising were addressed.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was good (published 1 March 2017). At this inspection we found the rating remained the same.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
We last inspected the service in November 2014 and rated the service as ‘Good.’ At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’ and met all the fundamental standards we inspected against.
There were safeguarding procedures in place. Staff were knowledgeable about what action they should take if abuse was suspected. The local authority safeguarding team informed us that were no ongoing organisational safeguarding matters regarding the service.
The premises were clean. Checks and tests had been carried out to ensure that the premises were safe. Medicines were managed safely.
Recruitment checks were carried out to ensure that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Records confirmed that training was available to ensure staff were suitably skilled. Staff were supported though an appraisal and supervision system.
People's nutritional needs were met and they were supported to access healthcare services when required.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
We observed positive interactions between staff and people who lived at the service. Staff promoted people's privacy and dignity. There were systems in place to ensure people were involved in their care and support.
Care plans were in place which detailed the individual care and support to be provided for people. Arrangements for social activities met people’s individual needs.
There was a complaints procedure in place. No complaints had been received since our last inspection.
Audits and checks were carried out to monitor all aspects of the service. Action plans were developed to highlight any areas which required improvement. Staff were very positive about working for the provider and the registered manager. They said they felt valued and enjoyed working at the service. We observed that they applied this positivity in their roles when supporting people.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
The inspection was carried out over two days. We visited the service unannounced on 6 November 2014 together with an expert by experience and announced on 14 November 2014.
The service met all of the regulations we inspected at our last inspection on 12 July 2013.
Heatherdale Residential Home is a detached property situated in South Broomhill, Morpeth which provides accommodation for people who require personal care. The home can accommodate up to 36 older people some of whom are living with dementia. There were 33 people living at the home on the days of our inspection.
A registered manager was 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
There were procedures in place to keep people safe. Staff knew what action to take if abuse was suspected. Safe recruitment procedures were followed.
Staff were appropriately trained and told us they had completed training in safe working practices and were trained to meet the specific needs of people who lived there such as those who were living with dementia. Staff said that they undertook an induction programme which included shadowing an experienced member of staff.
People received food and drink which met their nutritional needs. We observed people at lunch time and saw that staff provided discreet support to those who required assistance. There was a happy atmosphere in the dining and lounge areas where people were eating and it was clear that people were enjoying their meals.
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. DoLS are part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They aim to make sure that people are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom. The registered manager was aware of the Supreme Court judgement which had redefined the definition regarding what constituted a deprivation of liberty. While we saw that some mental capacity assessments were in place; the registered manager informed us that further work was being carried out to ensure that decision-specific assessments were carried out and best interests meetings held to ensure that all actions taken were in the best interests of people in line with legislation.
Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and we saw that care was provided with patience and kindness and people’s privacy and dignity were respected. A GP told us, “We were absolutely happy to place both our relatives here. The care was superior here.” Comments from relatives included, “It was the best thing I ever did for Mum getting her in here” and “I am very happy with the care. They go out of there way for you.”
We saw that an activities programme was in place. People were supported to access the local community. A complaints process was in place and people told us that they felt able to raise any issues or concerns and action would be taken to resolve these.
The registered manager assessed and monitored the quality of care. Audits and checks were carried out to monitor a number of areas such as health and safety, medicines management, care plans and meal times.
Health and social care professionals spoke positively about the home. The GP said, “It passes the friends and family test” and “You would go a long way to find a better place. It’s not perfect but nowhere is.”
People told us their consent was gained prior to care being delivered and we found that staff acted in accordance with their wishes. We found that where necessary, the provider acted in people's best interests if they did not have the capacity to consent themselves.
We found that people's care and support needs were appropriately assessed and their care and support was planned. Where people required input into their care from external healthcare professionals this had been arranged.
People were cared for in a clean and hygienic environment and we found the provider had appropriate measures in place to monitor and manage infection control.
We found the provider had a structured staff selection and recruitment policy in place which aimed to ensure staff were suitably skilled, experienced and qualified to deliver care safely.
The provider had adequate systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.
The inspection team was led by a CQC inspector joined by an Expert by Experience, 'people who have experience of using services and who can provide that perspective'.
The SOFI (Short Observational Framework for Inspection) tool was not used on this inspection as people were able to talk to us about the care and treatment they received.
During this themed inspection visit, we spoke to nine people who used the service and two relatives. This is what they told us: People who used the service said they were given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment. Each person had a written contract and a statement of their terms and conditions with the provider. No-one had moved into the home without having had their personal individual needs assessed.
All had been assured by the senior staff their assessed needs would be met.
People told us they had been involved and had contributed to the pre-admission assessment. People told us their privacy and dignity was always upheld by staff working in the home.
The nine people we spoke with on the day of the inspection all said they had a choice of at least three hot meals each day. People said portion sizes were good. They said they never felt hungry or thirsty. People told us they were provided with a selection of hot and cold drinks and snacks throughout the day.
Five people told us 'We always get plenty to eat and drink and lots of snacks and drinks between meals.' All said the meals were exceptionally good.
All the people we spoke with told us they felt safe and well cared for living at Heatherdale. One person said, 'I have no complaints about this place, its great'. Another person said, 'I have lived here for two years, it is a wonderful friendly place and the staff are so kind and caring'.
People told us they were well supported by the staff team and were happy with the care, treatment and support they received.
Relatives we spoke with told us the care their family members received was very good. One person told us, 'My relative has settled in very well, the staff treat him with respect and they always have time to listen to both of us'.