You are here

Heathcotes (Tudor Lodge) Good

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 28 February 2018

This comprehensive inspection took place on 16 and 18 January 2018 and was unannounced. This was the first inspection since this location registered with us on 31 October 2016. The service was previously registered with us under a different provider.

Heathcotes (Tudor Lodge) provides 24-hour residential care for adults with learning disabilities, autism, and associated challenging behaviour. The service has seven en-suite bedrooms over three floors. The first and second floor rooms are accessible by stairs. There is a modern kitchen diner, two communal lounges and a well-maintained garden. At the time out our inspection six people were using the service.

A registered manager was in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

Information was available to people to explain what they should do if they felt unhappy or did not feel safe. The staff members we spoke with demonstrated a good knowledge on how to recognise abuse and how to report any concerns. Staff were familiar with the whistle-blowing procedure and told us they would follow it if appropriate.

Staff protected people from risk while minimising restrictions on people’s choice and control. Staff told us about the risk people faced both in the service and in the community and how they could help to reduce risk but still encourage people’s independence.

People were cared for by staff who received appropriate training and support to do their job well. Staff felt supported by managers. There were adequate numbers of staff to support people and staffing numbers were flexible depending on people’s needs and activities. The service followed safe recruitment practice.

There were appropriate arrangements in place for the storage, administering, recording and disposal of medicines. Staff administered medicines safely. All areas of the home were clean and well maintained. Cleaning schedules were in place and staff had access to personal protective equipment when required.

People were supported to keep healthy and well. They were supported to attend appointments with GP’s and other healthcare professionals when they needed to. People were encouraged to make health choices about their food and supported to have sufficient amounts to eat and drink. Risks associated to people’s diet had been identified and staff knew what to do to manage this risk

People were offered choices, supported to feel involved and to have maximum choice and control of their lives while staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Staff knew how to communicate effectively with each individual according to their needs.

People were relaxed and comfortable in the company of staff. Staff supported people in a way which was kind, caring, and respectful and encouraged people to follow their own hobbies, activities and interests.

Care records focused on people as individuals and gave clear information to people and staff. People were encouraged to make decisions about their care and support needs. These were reviewed with them regularly by staff.

The provider had a number of audits and quality assurance systems to help them understand the quality of the care and support people received and look at ways to continually improve the service.

Inspection areas



Updated 28 February 2018

The service was safe. Staff knew how to recognise abuse and how to report any concerns. There was a sufficient number of staff during the day and night with the right skills and experience to care for people safely. People had personalised risk assessments which gave staff detailed information on how to manage the risks identified.

Medicines were safely stored, administered and recorded. The home was well maintained and equipment was regularly checked. The service had an infection control policy which staff understood and applied in the course of carrying out their duties.



Updated 28 February 2018

The service was effective. People�s needs and choices were fully assessed. People were cared for by staff who knew and understood their needs. Staff had the knowledge and skills required to carry out their roles.

The manager and staff understood the main principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS).

People were supported to have sufficient amounts to eat and drink and to maintain a balanced diet. People�s health was regularly monitored and they had access to a variety of external healthcare professionals and services.



Updated 28 February 2018

The service was caring. Staff were kind, attentive and knew people well including their preferred method of communication and in relation to their complex needs.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect and supported people to be as independent as they wanted to be.



Updated 28 February 2018

The service was responsive. People's care plans were regularly updated and reviewed. People and their relatives were involved in their care planning and felt in control of the care and support they received.

People could choose to participate in a wide range of social activities, both inside and outside the service. People were encouraged and supported by staff to be as independent as they wanted to be.

Relatives told us they were confident in expressing their views, discussing their relatives� care and raising any concerns. The service actively encouraged people to express their views and had various arrangements in place to deal with comments and complaints.



Updated 28 February 2018

The service was well led. Relatives spoke positively about the care of their family members and the attitude of staff and the registered manager. Staff told us that the manager was approachable, supportive and listened to them. Regular staff and managers meetings helped share learning and best practice so staff understood what was expected of them at all levels.

Systems were in place to regularly monitor the safety and quality of the service people received and results were used to improve the service.