You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 28 January 2017

We carried out an unannounced inspection of Heathside Residential Home on 07 and 08 December 2016.

Heathside Residential Home is based in Leigh and is owned by Wigan Council. The home can accommodate up to 30 older people living with a diagnosis of dementia. All bedrooms are single accommodation with 15 providing en-suite facilities. Communal space within the home included two dining rooms, three lounges and a conservatory. A separate hairdressing room is also available. There are two secure central garden areas that are easily accessible from the main building. At the time of the inspection 28 people were living at Heathside Residential Home.

A comprehensive inspection was last carried out at the home on 20 November 2014, when we rated the service as ‘requires improvement’ overall with one breach of the previous regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010, this was because the service did not have effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provision. A focussed inspection was carried out on 22 July 2015 which looked only at the well-led domain and the previous breach in regulation. At that inspection we found the service had made improvements and was meeting all the legal requirements in relation to the regulations.

At this inspection we found the service was still meeting all regulatory requirements and did not identify any concerns with the care provided to people living at the home. However, we have made two recommendations; these are in regards to ensuring the full completion of assessment documentation and the introduction of a supervisions matrix to assist in monitoring the completion of one to one meetings.

At the time of the inspection the home had a registered manager. 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.

We saw the home was clean and had appropriate infection control processes in place. Five domestics were employed, with four working on any one day to ensure the morning, afternoon and evening periods were covered. Cleaning products were signed in and out and checklists were in place to ensure all required cleaning tasks were carried out.

Each person we spoke with told us they felt safe. Relatives expressed no concerns about the safety of their family members and they were complementary about the level of care provided. The home had appropriate safeguarding policies and procedures in place, with detailed instructions on how to report any safeguarding concerns to the local authority. Staff were all trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults and had a good knowledge of how to identify and report any safeguarding or whistleblowing concerns.

We saw the home had systems in place for the safe storage, administration and recording of medicines. Each person kept their medication in a locked cabinet in their bedroom and only staff authorised to administer medicines were allowed access. All people taking medicines had a medication administration record (MAR) in place, which included a photograph to ensure medicines were given to the correct person. During the inspection all records we observed had been filled out correctly and all medicine amounts tallied.

All staff demonstrated a good knowledge and understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is used when someone needs to be deprived of their liberty in their best interest. We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA. We found that the provider had followed the requirements in DoLS authorisations and related assessments and decisions had been appropriately taken.

Staff spoke positively about the training available. We saw all the staff had completed an induction programme and on-going training was provided to ensure skills and knowledge were up to date.

Staff confirmed they received supervision with their line manager, which along with the completion of team meetings, meant they were supported in their roles. We did note that the frequency of supervisions was different to what was detailed in the service’s protocols.

Observations of meal times showed these to be a positive experience, with people being supported to eat where they chose. Staff engaged in conversation with people and encouraged them throughout the meal. We saw nutritional assessments were in place and special dietary needs catered for.

Throughout the inspection we observed positive and appropriate interactions between the staff and people who used the service. Staff were seen to be caring and treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. Both people who used the service and their relatives were complimentary about the quality of the staff and the standard of care received.

We looked at six care files. Not all files contained fully completed pre-admission assessments, which we discussed with the registered manager. Despite this, the care plans contained accurate and detailed information about the people who used the service and how they wished to be cared for. Each file contained detailed care plans and risk assessments, along with a range of personalised information which helped ensure their needs were being met and care they received was person centred.

The home employed an activity champion, who had had a positive impact since commencing employment in January. Everyone we spoke to was positive about the variety and frequency of activities available. We saw the activity schedule catered for all interests and abilities and included involvement from external agencies. A large number of activities and events had been the result of suggestions made from people who used the service. The home actively documented activities and displayed photographs of the different events that had taken place around the building.

The home had a range of systems and procedures in place to monitor the quality and effectiveness of the service. Audits were completed on a weekly and monthly basis and covered a wide range of areas including medication, care files, infection control and the overall provision of care. We saw evidence of action plans being implemented to address any issues found.

Inspection areas



Updated 28 January 2017

The service was safe.

Staffing levels were appropriate to meet people’s needs.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe living at Heathside Residential Home.

Staff were trained in safeguarding procedures and knew how to report concerns.

Medicines were stored, handled and administered safely by staff who had received training and their competency assessed.



Updated 28 January 2017

The service was effective.

Staff reported that sufficient and regular training was provided to enable them to carry out their roles successfully.

All staff spoken to had knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA 2015) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the application of these was evidenced in the care plans.

The service worked closely with other professionals and agencies to ensure people’s health needs were being met.

Consideration had been given to ensuring the environment was suitable to people living with dementia.



Updated 28 January 2017

The service was caring.

Both people living at the home and their relatives were positive about the care and support provided.

Throughout the inspection we observed positive interactions between staff and people. Staff members were friendly, kind and respectful and took time to listen to what people had to say.

People were able to make choices about their day such as when to get up, what to eat and how to spend their time. Staff had an understanding of the importance of promoting independence.



Updated 28 January 2017

The service was responsive.

Assessments of people’s needs were completed and care plans provided staff with the necessary information to help them support people in a person centred way.

Care plans and other records were regularly reviewed, with involvement from the person themselves, their family or other representative.

People we spoke with were positive about the activity programme at the home. The home provided a varied choice of daily, weekly and monthly activities basing these on people’s choices and requests.



Updated 28 January 2017

The service was well-led.

Audits and monitoring tools were in place and used regularly to assess the quality of the service.

Both the people living at the home, relatives and staff said the home was well-led and managed and they felt supported by management.

Team meetings were held to ensure that all staff had input into the running of the home and made aware of all necessary information.