Heaton House Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People told us they were happy with their care and were offered choices. People’s care records explained their needs and how they wanted to be cared for. However, some people’s care records lacked detail and contained inaccurate or contradictory information, which could impact on the delivery of safe care. For example, 1 person’s care records stated they had type 1 diabetes, when they actually had type 2. This same person’s continence care plan stated they were able to use the toilet and knew when they needed to go, but also stated they were unable to use the toilet and was unaware when they needed to go, as such it was unclear what their needs were. Another person had been prescribed a modified diet. However, their choking risk assessment made no mention of why they required one, nor what the risks were should they not eat the correct texture and type of food.

There was no evidence within the care plans we saw, people had been involved in reviewing their care and ensuring it still met their needs. Staff had reviewed the care plans each month and confirmed they were up to date and accurate. None of the issues we noted had been identified during the review process.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People spoke positively about their care, and the staff who provided this. Comments included, “It’s very good in here, the carers are smashing. I feel very safe and looked after” and “They [care staff] really are nice and kind.”

Staff had formed positive working relationships with people and as a result, understood their diverse needs and made sure the care and support they provided was in line with people’s needs and preferences.

Staff also worked well with healthcare professionals to ensure people received joined up care and support from everyone involved in their care.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People received care and support at the times of their choosing. Staff were flexible and accommodated changes when people wanted this. For example, people told us they could decide when to get up and when to go to bed, and staff worked around their wishes.

Aids and adaptations were in place within the home, including handrails on corridors and raised toilet seating, grab rails and bath hoists in specific bathrooms. The home had a lift to ensure people could access all floors freely and without difficulty, as well as a stair lift for people who preferred to use this.

The provider used a digital care planning system and other electronic records. As most people living in the home did not have access to a computer, this presented a risk of people being digitally excluded. The provider had a policy regarding this, which each person was given a copy of. This explained printed copies of all care records could be made available, and information could also be shared in other ways such as verbally.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion which helped them better understand and reduce inequalities which may be faced by people living at the home. Information was made available to people in ways they could understand, such as written in their first language, or by staff verbally translating more complex information, to ensure people’s views were heard.

People’s views on a range of areas were sought on a monthly basis. For example, in January 2025, they survey had focussed on the complaints process, in March 2025, privacy and dignity and in August 2025, clothing and laundry. The provider had recently introduced a system for feeding back actions taken based on feedback provided. Where actions had been taken, there was limited evidence to show the provider had taken steps to ensure these had been successful. For example, some people had stated they were unaware of the complaints process or where to find a copy. Action had been taken to address this, however, there was no record to confirm these same people now knew how to complain. The home manager agreed to address this moving forwards.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.