We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Herons on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about The Herons, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice:
• People were supported to maintain contact with family members and friends using telephones and video calling. There was a separate visitors’ area with a designated entrance so people could visit when it was safe to do so.
• Staff were observed to wear the correct Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in line with government guidance. PPE was accessible throughout the service.
• Cleaning schedules had been increased to ensure high touch surfaces such as door handles were cleaned regularly. Additional cleaning had been introduced to maintain good hygiene standards.
• The service was using the space available to enable people to socially distance. The dining room had been re-designed so people could sit at a safe distance from each other.
• The service had an up to date infection control policy.
• People were safely admitted to the service in line with government guidance.
• Staff supported people to engage in socially distanced activities such as indoor bowls and food tasting sessions. Staff had put measures in place so people could participate in these events safely.
• People and staff were regularly tested for COVID-19.
The Herons is a residential care home providing personal care to 30 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 39 people.
The Herons is a purpose-built care home. Bedrooms are situation on both the ground and first floors. There is a dining and lounge area on the ground floor as well as other communal lounge areas on both floors.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People told us they felt safe. The recruitment of staff was safe and there were sufficient staff employed to meet people’s needs. The management of medicines was robust. The premises and equipment were suitably maintained. Peoples care records included risk assessments, although where people required a hoist, staff needed to record more detailed information.
New staff were supported and there was ongoing training and support for all staff. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Information was effectively communicated between staff. People were able to access external health care professionals as needed. A varied menu was provided but feedback about the meals was mixed.
Staff were caring and kind. People’s right to privacy and dignity was respected. Staff involved people in making decisions about their daily care and support.
Care records were detailed, and person centred. Information was recorded to enable staff to be aware of people’s communication needs. There were a range of activities provided for people daily. There was a system in place to manage complaints although no-one we spoke with told us they had any complaints about the service.
Staff enjoyed working at the home and felt listened to. A number of audits were completed at the home to ensure the quality of the service was continually monitored. Regular meetings were held with staff and people who lived at the home. We saw evidence issues raised were addressed.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 17 January 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
The service had a registered manager in place 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.
Some people felt they had to wait longer for staff at peak times of day. People were supported by staff who knew how to recognise abuse and how to respond to concerns. Risks in relation to people’s daily life were assessed and planned for to minimise the risk of them coming to harm.
Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.
People were supported by staff who had the knowledge and skills to provide safe and appropriate care and support. People were supported to make decisions and staff knew how to act if people did not have the capacity to make decisions.
People were supported to maintain their nutrition and staff were monitoring and responding to people’s health conditions.
People lived in a service where staff listened to them. People’s emotional needs were recognised and responded to by a staff team who cared about the individual they were supporting. People were supported to enjoy a social life.
The systems in place to monitor the quality of the service were not always effective in identifying issues and bringing about improvements. People were involved in giving their views on how the service was run.
We inspected the service on 2 December 2014. This was an unannounced inspection. The Herons is registered to provide accommodation for up to 39 older people. The home is situated on two floors with a passenger lift for access to the upper floor. On the day of our inspection 38 people were using the service.
The service had a registered manager in place 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.
When we last inspected the service on 13 May 2014 we found there were improvements needed in relation to how people gave consent to their care, how they received care and support which met their needs and the manager’s failure to notify us of events in the service. The provider sent us an action plan telling us they would make these improvements by August 2014. We found at this inspection that this had been completed and the provider had made improvements in line with the action plan.
People felt safe in the service and the manager shared information with the local authority when needed. Staff knew how to respond to incidents if the manager was not in the service. This meant there were systems in place to protect people from the risk of abuse.
Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed. Staffing levels were matched to the needs of people who used the service to ensure they received care and support when they needed it.
People were supported by staff who had the knowledge and skills to provide safe and appropriate care and support.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. The DoLS is part of the MCA, which is in place to protect people who lack capacity to make certain decisions because of illness or disability. DoLS protects the rights of such people by ensuring that if there are restrictions on their freedom these are assessed by professionals who are trained to decide if the restriction is needed. The manager told us that all of the people using the service had the capacity to make their own decisions but there were systems in place to ensure the appropriate assessments would take place if the need arose.
People were supported to maintain their nutrition and health needs. Referrals were made to health care professionals for additional support or guidance if people’s health changed.
People were treated with dignity and respect and had their choices acted on. We saw staff were kind and caring when supporting people.
People enjoyed the activities and social stimulation they were offered. People also knew who to speak with if they had any concerns they wished to raise and they felt these would be taken seriously.
People were involved in giving their views on how the service was run through the systems used to monitor the quality of the service. Audits had been completed that resulted in the manager implementing action plans to improve the service.
During the inspection we gathered information to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People using the service told us they felt safe. They told us they received good care. One person said, 'There's always somebody [staff] there.'
Relatives told us they felt their family members were safe. One relative said, 'I've never seen anything negative in the way they [staff] treat anybody.'
Staff told us they felt people using the service were safe. One staff member said, 'I think we've got a good care team.' Staff also told us they felt there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
The Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. We saw a DoLS policy was in place. The manager also had an appropriate understanding of DoLS. However, two care staff we spoke with did not have an understanding of DoLS.
Is the service effective?
People using the service told us their needs were met. They told us staff provided them with choices and respected their decisions. We saw staff asked people whether they wanted assistance and did not act against their wishes.
Relatives told us they felt their family members received good care that met their needs. One relative said, 'I feel [family member's] needs are met here.'
We saw assessments had been completed and people had many care plans which set out their care needs. However, we found some care records regarding pressure area care did not contain appropriate information. Staff had not always acted in accordance with people's identified needs regarding pressure area care.
We saw that some people had not signed to record their agreement to information in their care records.
People using the service and relatives told us they felt staff were well trained and good at their jobs. One relative said, 'There's constantly training going on.'
Staff also told us they received enough training and could ask for more if needed. We found staff received training to provide appropriate and safe care.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. A person using the service said staff were, 'Very nice. They're most kind.'
Relatives told us staff were caring. One relative said, 'They're brilliant. The staff are excellent.'
We saw staff interacting with people. We saw they were very caring and very kind. We saw they communicated warmly with people as they supported them.
Is the service responsive?
Staff had a good understanding of people's care and support needs. They told us how they supported people to maintain their health and wellbeing and involved other agencies when appropriate. We found that the service arranged for people to access other services such as a community falls team and district nursing services.
Is the service well led?
People using the service told us they felt the service was good. They told us they felt listened to and could contribute their views. One person said, "She's [the manager is] very approachable.'
Staff told us they felt the service was well led.
We saw that residents and staff meetings took place.
We found that the provider had effective processes in place to regularly monitor the quality of the service. We saw audits were completed.
However, we found that the provider had not notified the Care Quality Commission about two incidents that affected people using the service which they were required to do by law.
People we spoke with told us they received their medicines when they needed them and they had no problems. Two people told us they self administered their medicines and they felt this improved their independence.
Two people told us they had been looked after well during their recent illness. One person said, 'I am happy and settled, I am looked after very well and when I was unwell recently all my needs were met and I am feeling much better.' Another person said, 'I am looked after very well, I have been unwell but I am feeling much better now.'
We spoke with two people about the recruitment processes. Both said they were not involved in this and neither of them wished to be. They told us they trusted the manager to recruit suitable staff and that when new staff started working at the home they were introduced to them.
We found the provider did take account of concerns or complaints raised and people were aware how they may make these known. However two out of five people spoken with told us they were unsure if concerns they raised would be listened to and acted upon.
One person told us their family had made all of the arrangements for them to come and live at the home and they had got all of the information they needed. Another person said they used to visit the home before they moved in, so they knew everything they needed to know to make a decision.
All of the people spoken with said staff were respectful to them and they respected their privacy. They also said they could make their own choices about what they did and how they spent their time.
One relative said they were involved in important decisions about their relative's care.
All of the people we spoke with spoke highly of the staff and the care they received. One person said, 'My needs are met and I am helped as needed.' Another person said, 'I am very happy, I am looked after well, the staff are nice and helpful.'
One relative said, 'The staff are amazing and discreet with their care. All of my [relatives] needs are met. I have been involved in the care planning and have signed them. Everything was explained.'
All of the people we spoke with said they felt safe living at the home.
One relative said they thought their relative was very safe living at the home.
We spoke with two people about the recruitment processes. Both said they were not involved in this and one suggested that they may like to be. Although they were not involved, both had an understanding of the checks that the employer made to make sure that staff were recruited safely.
Three of the people we spoke with were aware of the meetings that took place in the home and two also said they had completed questionnaires in the past.
All of the people we spoke with said they were happy with the service they received and that if they were unhappy they could approach the staff to talk about this.