You are here

Heatherlea House Residential Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 9 August 2018

This inspection took place on 17 July 2018 and was unannounced. Heatherlea House Residential Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Heatherlea House Residential Home is registered for 17 people in one adapted building. On the day of our inspection, 15 people were living at the service and one person was in hospital.

There was a registered manager in post who was available throughout the 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.

People living at the service were protected from harm as the provider had robust processes in place to ensure their safety. Staff supporting people were aware of their responsibilities in relation to protecting people from abuse. They had received appropriate training to support their understanding of any safeguarding issues. The registered manager reported any issues of concern to both the CQC and the local safeguarding teams and worked in an open and transparent manner. There were clear processes in place to ensure lessons were learnt following any incidents or events.

The risks to people’s safety were clearly identified with measures in place to reduce these risks. The environment and essential equipment were well maintained.

People were supported by well-trained and competent staff in sufficient numbers to keep them safe. Their medicines were managed safely and people were protected from the risk of infection through good hygiene practices and staff knowledge of reducing the risks of cross infection.

People’s needs were assessed using effective evidenced based assessment tools. These were then used to provide clear guidance for staff to assist them gain a good understanding of an individual’s needs and offer the most effective support to people. Staff were supported with appropriate training for their roles.

People were supported to maintain a healthy diet, with staff showing good knowledge of people’s nutritional and health needs. They received support to manage their health needs through well-developed links with local health professionals. The environment people lived in was a well maintained safe environment which met their needs.

Staff sought consent from people before caring for them and they understood and followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People at the service, and relatives were treated with kindness and care by staff who supported people with respect and dignity, and developed positive relationships with people in their care.

People were able to maintain relationships with people who were important to them and relatives felt their views and opinions about their loved one’s care were listened to.

The care people received was person centred and met their individual needs, they were supported to take part in a range of social activities to prevent isolation. People’s wishes in relation to their end of life care were discussed with them so their wishes were known. There was a complaints procedure in place and people knew who to complain to should they have any issues.

The service was well led, the registered manager was visible and supportive towards people, their relatives and the staff who worked at the service. The quality assurance systems in place were used effectively to monitor performance and quality of care. The registered manager respon

Inspection areas



Updated 9 August 2018

The Service was safe.

People were kept safe and the risk of abuse was minimised because the provider had systems in place to recognise and respond to allegations or incidents.

The risks to people�s safety were regularly assessed and measures were in place to reduce risks and promote people�s independence.

People were supported by adequate numbers of staff and they received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were managed safely across the service and staff administering medicines were provided with training to ensure they were safe to do so.

People lived in a clean and hygienic service.



Updated 9 August 2018

The service was Effective.

People�s needs were assessed using nationally recognised assessment tools.

People were supported by staff who received appropriate training and supervision. People lived in a service which met their needs in relation to the premises and adaptions were made where needed.

People made decisions in relation to their care and support and where they needed support to make decisions, their rights were protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported to maintain their nutrition and their health was monitored and responded to appropriately.



Updated 9 August 2018

The service was Caring.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring, and showed a good knowledge of their preferences and choices.

People and their relatives were supported to be involved with the development of their care.

People had access to advocacy information should they require this.

Staff respected people�s rights to privacy and treated them with dignity.



Updated 9 August 2018

The service was responsive.

People received individualised care and had access to a range of social activities.

People had access to information in a format which met their needs.

People were supported to raise issues and staff knew what to do if issues arose.

Where appropriate, people�s end of life care wishes were discussed and plans of care were in place.



Updated 9 August 2018

The service was well led.

There was an open and transparent culture in the service where people were listened to and staff were valued.

There was a robust governance system in place to monitor the quality of the service.