- Care home
Highfield Care Home
Assessment report published 17 July 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: This assessment took place between 29 April and 15 May 2025. We visited the service on 29 April and 01 May 2025. This inspection was planned in response to concerns about the management of incidents and safe care and treatment. We found 3 breaches of the regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, safe recruitment practices and good governance. This was the services first inspection and was unannounced.
Highfield Care Home is a care home with nursing. The service is registered to support up to 34 adults including older people and people with physical disabilities. At the time of the inspection visit there was 28 people living there, 2 more people moved in between inspection visits. The service is set out over two floors with the main accommodation being on the ground floor and 3 bedrooms upstairs accessible by a lift. There is an accessible garden.
The service needed to be improved. Safeguarding concerns were not always reported to the local authority in a timely way and were not always reported to CQC as legally required. Risks to people were not always managed as well as they needed to be. For example, where people were at risk from a breakdown in their skin health. How people were supported with their diabetes needed to be improved. Staff needed to develop a better understanding of how to support and encourage people to reduce the risks from diabetes. People’s needs were assessed prior to them moving in and regularly reviewed; however, care plans were not always updated to reflect people’s changing needs.
Prior to the inspection fire drills needed to be improved to ensure all staff regularly participated in evacuation training and lessons were learnt from these drills. Staff were always recruited safely. There were no references on file for some staff to demonstrate these had been sought as part of the recruitment process.
Staff told us communication needed to be improved. During the inspection daily handover meetings were reinstated and staff told us this had made an improvement. Staff raised concerns over staff deployment in the mornings and told us they were too busy at times. We raised this with the provider who told us they reorganised staff responsibilities to improve morning workflow. There was a new activities coordinator in place who was in the process of developing activities for people.
Management oversight needed to improve to drive forward the quality of the service and standards of care. People’s care was not being effectively monitored.
People received their medicines as prescribed for the most part, although there were some areas we raised for improvement.
Staff worked well in partnership with other organisations to ensure people had access to health care and other services. Staff knew how to identify concerns if people were at risk of abuse. Staff understood how to whistleblow if they felt concerns were not addressed. The service was clean and free from odour. Following the inspection visits the provider sent us an action plan to set out how they planned to improve.
In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded.
People's experience of this service
People and their relatives consistently told us the staff team were lovely and kind. One relative told us, “I have not met one member of staff I have not warmed to. There are some really stand out staff who make the best of things for people”. However, there were areas where people’s experience could be improved. For example, feedback from people about staffing levels was mixed. One person told us, “The staff are nice. I am not sure there are enough.” Another person said, “They can be busy, but they come when they can.”
Staff understood the importance of offering people choices and listened to the choices people expressed. Staff offered people choices through the day and checked with people that they were comfortable. For example, ensuring people were warm enough or if they wanted a drink. People’s privacy was respected and staff encouraged people to do things for themselves. One person told us, “[staff] always knock on my door and are cheerful and say hello”. People were treated as individuals by care staff. However, there was a practice of referring to people as room numbers by some staff which did not support a dignified or personalised approach.