Heathlands Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (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 had a positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People told us they felt safe and could raise concerns about safety to staff. Staff knew how and where to report accidents and incidents. A member of staff said, “We have a handheld device where we can report accidents and incidents, we can also report it to the nurse.” Staff took part in active learning afterwards to prevent reoccurrence.

The registered manager and deputy manager told us, “We decided to do weekly group supervision, if we see any bad practice we can talk about it with staff. We also have ‘Hot topics’ where we will talk about things if we think it will turn into bad practice.” Staff confirmed these meetings took place.

An analysis of accidents and incidents took place to identify themes and to support learning for staff to ensure people were kept safe at the home.

The provider always worked with people and healthcare partners to design, establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was always well managed and monitored. They made sure there was always continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The registered manager and deputy had worked in collaboration to establish links with the hospitals to ensure pathways of care from initial assessments of care were in depth and completed promptly before discharge to the home.

These pathways were underpinned by clear communication, risk management processes, and continuity of care. We observed an assessment which took place during the inspection over the telephone, and this showed the registered manager and deputy manager had developed a robust pathway for people to enter the home safely. A designated assessment nurse acted as a dedicated liaison, facilitating timely and comprehensive assessments that supported clinical decision-making and promoted positive health outcomes. This integrated approach reflected the provider's commitment to delivering safe, effective, and person-centred care. It also ensured a clear and comprehensive care plan and risk assessment could be produced to fully meet people’s care needs.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People we spoke with told us they were safe at the home. One person said, “I feel safe here because there's always people around to help me.” Another person said, “Yeah, I’m safe.”

The majority of relatives spoken with told us their family member was safe. One relative said, “Yeah, I have peace of mind that [person] is safe.” Another relative said, “I’m happy with everything here.”

Where relatives had concerns it related to the call bell and fluid intake. We raised these issues directly with the provider and they advised they would look to share information about the new call bells as there was now an additional call bell that was detachable for easier access. In relation to fluid intake, relatives were concerned their family member was not receiving enough fluids and were not assured unless they were present. A relative said, “Yes, that’s a major concern, fluid intake. Even more so now it's getting hotter.” We observed that people did have fluids throughout our visit.

Staff completed safeguarding training and knew the different types of abuse people could face. Staff were aware of the reporting procedures to follow in the event of witnessing or suspecting abuse and how to whistleblow. A member of staff said, “People are kept safe here. We have been given training to know what to do, for example, dementia residents, if they keep forgetting where they are we reassure them and keep them safe.” Another staff member said, “I’d report abuse to [registered manager]. If I saw abuse I would have to step in and report it afterwards. I can also whistleblow if I want to voice concerns.”

There was a zero tolerance approach to abuse or neglect and staff were willing to speak up if they saw people were at risk. The management were also proactive in reporting instances of abuse where it was suspected.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People’s risks were managed well, and plans were in place to reduce the risk of potential harm. Staff demonstrated good knowledge of managing people’s different risks. For example, a member of staff said, “We need 1 – 2 days to know information about them. Information may say someone can mobilise but we assess to see if they can stand up or not. Then we need to complete a referral to get the correct moving and handling equipment.”

Each person had their own personalised risk assessments and covered areas such as mobility, pressure care, falls and nutrition. These assessments were regularly reviewed and updated to ensure people’s needs were met.

We observed staff using correct moving and handling techniques when supporting people and showed they were able to use hoists and bed rails safely and in line with their training.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The physical environment was maintained to a high standard of safety. Staff told us regular checks of the environment were conducted to identify and address any potential hazards, such as trip hazards or faulty equipment.

Food preparation areas were clean and tidy and the home had received 5 stars in its most recent food hygiene inspection.

Health and safety checks were carried out within the home. Maintenance records were maintained to ensure repairs were documented and actioned.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

People and their relatives told us there were enough staff at the home. One person said, “Yes even at weekends there is enough staff around, so that makes me feel safe yes. If I get up people walk me in and out of the room.” Our observations confirmed people were attended to in a timely manner, call bells showed they were answered promptly. A relative said, “There are enough staff here. I never hear lots of call bells ringing.”

Staff received wide ranging training and support to make them effective in their role. Records confirmed staff completed mandatory training in some of the following areas; safeguarding, infection control, dementia, health and safety, autism, oral health, moving and handling and diabetes. A member of staff told us, “We get lots of training, any training we want they will get it for us.” Another member of staff said, “The hands on training has really helped, we are given protected time to do it.”

Records confirmed safe recruitment practices were followed, and staff were provided with regular supervision and an annual appraisal to support them and monitor their progress. A member of staff said, "Supervision is regular and helpful. It's not just a tick-box exercise; we actually discuss things that are going well and things I'm finding challenging." Another member of staff said, “The appraisal process is fair and transparent. I felt like my voice was heard."

The provider assessed the risk of infection people faced. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. However, they did not always detect risk of potential infection in relation to the cleanliness in certain areas of the home.

During our observation of the ground floor we entered some vacant rooms where we found used incontinence pads and prescribed medicines disposed of in clinical waste bin instead of being returned to the pharmacy, which was not in line with safe medicine disposal protocols. These rooms were meant to be empty and not in use. These issues were brought to the attention of the registered manager, the rooms were cleaned and subsequently locked.

The rest of the home was very clean and free from malodour. Communal areas were regularly sanitised, and people’s bedrooms were clean and tidy. We observed housekeeping were tending to the cleaning at the home and they told us they were able to manage cleaning the home.

Staff told us they had access to plenty of personal protective equipment, and we saw staff follow safe hand hygiene procedures. A member of staff said, “We wear aprons, mask and gloves and will isolate a resident if they have an infection.” The same staff member said, “We always wash our hands and use separate laundry bags for infected linen and clothing is washed at high temperatures.”

Laundry within the home was managed very well and contingencies were in place when laundry equipment broke, to ensure people were not impacted. Housekeeping staff were very knowledgeable on the procedures to follow to deal with different types of people’s laundry to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Medicines were managed safely and effectively. People were involved when taking their medicines and where relatives were present, we observed them interact with staff to ask about medicines and staff demonstrated knowledge when responding.

Staff received training in administering medicines according to prescribed instructions from health professionals. Regular competency checks, audits and reviews identified and addressed any potential errors or inconsistencies in the administration of medicines. Nurses and clinical deputy managers completed stock checks and completed audits of medicines. This ensured people received medicines as prescribed.