You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 22 May 2018

Our unannounced inspection began on 5 April 2018. We told the provider we would return on 9 April 2018 to conclude the inspection. At our last inspection in July 2016 we rated the service as ‘good’ in all key questions. At this inspection we found the provider was still rated ‘good’.

Heathcotes (Wakefield) 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. The service provides residential care for up to 20 adults with learning disabilities and complex needs, and is located in a quiet area close to the centre of Wakefield. The service is split into two houses and a building containing three flats. These buildings are within shared grounds. There were 19 people using the service when we inspected.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

There were two registered managers in post when we inspected. 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.

There was an excellent, person-centred culture in the service, driven by a committed management team that led by example and supported their staff at all times. Staff were passionate about providing excellent care and support that was tailored to and respected each person’s individual needs and preferences. People’s care plans were detailed, person-centred and the provider ensured key information was available for people in formats accessible to them.

Staff were recruited safely, well trained and told us they were proud of the work they did. Staff were deployed in sufficient numbers to provide safe support when people needed it, and we saw staff managed challenging behaviours confidently and effectively. There was a low level of use of ‘as and when’ medicines in the management of behaviours that challenge. Staff training and practice meant people were safeguarded from potential abuse.

There were good controls in place to ensure the safe ordering, checking, storage and recording of people’s medicines. We saw records were fully completed with no gaps, and saw staff had a detailed handover of medicines at each shift change to ensure any issues were identified in a timely way.

People lived in a well maintained home and were encouraged to help in keeping it clean. The home had a very relaxed atmosphere, which we observed people were comfortable in. Staff and people who used the service clearly knew each other well and we observed appropriate banter which people enjoyed.

People were able to maintain and develop activities they enjoyed and encouraged to increase their independence whenever they were able. This included accessing local amenities and experiences of working in environments meaningful to the individual. 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.

There were clear processes in place to ensure concerns and complaints from people or their relatives were investigated and actioned as necessary, with people being updated as to the outcome. Some concerns which people expressed indirectly were addressed through changes to care plans and other routines, meaning the service was responsive to feedback received in a number of ways.

The provider had mechanisms in plac

Inspection areas



Updated 22 May 2018

The service was safe.

Staff were recruited safely and deployed in sufficient numbers to meet people�s support and care needs.

Risks associated with people�s care were well documented, and staff had access to detailed guidance to show how these risks could be minimised. Safeguarding practices in the home were safe.

Staff were well trained in the administration and management of medicines. Controls were in place to ensure medicines practices were safe.



Updated 22 May 2018

The service was effective.

People�s capacity to make decisions was well assessed and managed, and the service was meeting its obligations under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We saw people were offered choice and their preferences were understood and met.

Staff had a thorough induction including completion of the care certificate, and access to ongoing support and training.

People had good support to access other health and social care professionals, and we saw healthier eating was promoted in the service.



Updated 22 May 2018

The service was caring.

People and staff knew each other well, and we observed a very relaxed atmosphere throughout the home.

People had complex needs which meant they were not always able to contribute directly to decisions about their care, however staff displayed skill in understanding people�s needs and preferences and were empowered to suggest changes and improvements for people�s care plans.

People received good support with their personal care, which followed their preferences and encouraged their independence whenever possible.



Updated 22 May 2018

The service was responsive.

Everyone that worked in the service was passionate about delivering person-centred care that always reflected and respected people�s needs, preferences and potential. We saw any concerns or complaints were robustly addressed.

Care was responsive to changes in people�s needs. There were systems and practices in place to enable concerns and complaints well.

There was a good approach to ensuring equality and diversity principles were embedded in the service. There was a good range of accessible information and communication in use in the service.



Updated 22 May 2018

The service was well led.

There was strong, effective and inclusive leadership at all levels. Staff were proud of the quality of the care and support people received.

The quality of the service was constantly monitored, and we saw people and staff were encouraged to give feedback which influenced decisions made about service delivery.

The service created opportunities to work in partnership with other bodies involved in people�s care to ensure people were supported to have the best possible outcomes.