Hegarty Care

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 79 (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 ensured people received effective care and treatment by carrying out thorough assessments of their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs. These assessments were completed with people wherever possible and informed the development of personalised care plans that reflected their individual preferences, strengths and support requirements.

Assessments were holistic and comprehensive. Staff used current guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to inform their practice, ensuring care was aligned with evidence‑based standards. This meant people received support that was safe, appropriate and based on nationally recognised best practice. Each identified need had a corresponding care plan, which was regularly reviewed. Staff were provided with clear guidance on how to meet these needs effectively.

Records were well‑maintained and detailed. Staff kept clear, comprehensive care notes and regular reviews which demonstrated the actions taken when changes in people’s needs were identified. This ensured emerging risks or concerns were responded to promptly and care remained up to date.

Assessments were routinely reviewed and updated to ensure information remained current. This helped staff deliver care and treatment that met people’s needs as they evolved and supported them to achieve their expected outcomes. Staff communicated effectively with people, adapting their approach to maximise understanding. One staff member told us, “Adjustments are made to ensure that our residents know what is happening with regards to their care. We have communication aids, picture cards, social stories and physical adaptations, such as ramps, stand aids and mobility aids.” These tools helped ensure people were included in discussions about their care and could express their wishes.

Staff also developed personalised positive behaviour support plans for people who needed them. These plans were detailed and clearly outlined individual triggers, preferences, and effective de‑escalation techniques. They were created collaboratively and tailored to each person. This approach ensured support remained person‑centred, promoted wellbeing and reduced the need for restrictive practices.

People benefitted from care that was informed, personalised and responsive, supporting them to receive the right care at the right time.

The provider ensured people received care and treatment that was planned and delivered in partnership with them, focusing on what mattered most to each person. Care was provided in line with relevant legislation, and staff consistently worked to embed evidence‑based good practice throughout the service. This ensured the support people received was safe, effective and aligned with nationally recognised standards.

Staff followed established evidence‑based approaches, including the Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture (RSRCRC) framework. This helped ensure care promoted people’s independence, choice and control, and reduced unnecessary restrictions. The registered manager demonstrated a strong commitment to upholding these values and was passionate about enabling people to live their lives in the way they chose. This ethos was reflected in staff practice and in the positive, person‑centred culture that had developed across the service.

Care planning processes incorporated current best practice and guidance. Staff worked with people to understand their priorities, preferences and goals, ensuring these were reflected in their care and support arrangements. Plans were reviewed regularly to ensure they continued to meet people’s changing needs and expectations.

People’s health needs were supported in line with national guidance. Individuals were supported to attend annual health checks with their GP, ensuring potential health concerns were identified early. Staff also ensured people accessed routine appointments with opticians and dentists. This proactive approach meant people’s physical health was monitored and maintained, contributing to improved wellbeing and overall quality of life.

The provider demonstrated outstanding practice in the way staff, teams and external services worked collaboratively to support people. Strong, well‑established relationships across multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) ensured people received highly coordinated, seamless care. Staff consistently shared detailed assessments and essential information with partner agencies when people moved between services, meaning individuals only needed to tell their story once. This significantly reduced anxiety, improved continuity and promoted dignified, person‑centred transitions.

People had clear, comprehensive communication plans that were used by all staff and professionals involved in their care. These plans provided detailed guidance on how each person preferred to communicate and the best approaches to take should they become distressed. This ensured every member of staff, in any setting, had accurate and consistent information to follow. As a result, transitions were well‑managed, and the support people received remained stable, effective and aligned with their individual needs.

Staff spoke positively about the strong MDT approach within Hegarty Care. One staff member told us, “We use a multi-disciplinary approach (MDT), and have regular and good communication with external professionals. All staff have the opportunity to engage with external professionals, and this has been effective when dealing with residents’ ever-changing needs. When one of our residents exhibited behaviour that was out of character, their community psychiatric nurse was contacted, who then visited and worked with the resident and staff to put together a support route that responded to their needs.” This demonstrated the provider’s proactive and collaborative approach, ensuring people received timely specialist input whenever needed.

External professionals were exceptionally positive about the service. One described Hegarty Care as a “true partner” within MDT work and stated, “I have never worked with such a responsive residential care home.” This feedback highlighted the provider’s commitment to working openly and constructively with other agencies, ensuring decisions were well‑informed and always in the person’s best interests.

Information sharing across teams and services was highly effective. Staff ensured all relevant professionals understood people’s needs, how these would be met and who was responsible for delivering specific aspects of care. For example, when clinical tasks were delegated or referrals made between services. The provider produced detailed information packs for review meetings, ensuring external professionals had an accurate, honest and up‑to‑date picture of each person’s needs and progress, championing them as an individual and ensuring their voice was heard by all.

Staff were also skilled at recognising when a person required support beyond the scope of what the service provided. When additional or specialist input was needed, staff adapted their support accordingly and escalated concerns promptly to the appropriate agencies. This ensured people’s needs were met without delay while maintaining the safety and wellbeing of everyone living at Hegarty Care.

Overall, the provider fostered a culture of exceptional teamwork, strong professional partnerships and highly coordinated care. This meant people benefitted from seamless support, smooth transitions and the collective expertise of a well‑integrated, highly responsive multidisciplinary network. This collaborative approach directly contributed to the outstanding outcomes people achieved.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People accessed healthcare services in ways that suited their individual needs, some attended appointments at GP surgeries and dental practices, while for others, healthcare professionals visited the home. The provider had worked with the dentist to make reasonable adjustments and flexibility, as some people found attending these appointments overwhelming. This flexible approach ensured that people received timely and appropriate care, to support good oral health.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet to improve their nutritional status, and staff used personalised approaches to promote overall wellbeing.

The provider had effective and embedded systems in place to routinely monitor the quality of care and treatment, ensuring it remained consistently positive and aligned to people’s goals and clinical expectations. Regular review processes enabled the service to identify areas for development and drive continuous improvement. As a result, people experienced outcomes that were both meaningful and reliably maintained.

People were central to all aspects of their support. Care records demonstrated a detailed, bespoke approach to care planning, reflecting each person’s preferences, strengths, aspirations, and wellbeing needs. This highly individualised documentation ensured staff had clear guidance tailored to each person, contributing to consistently positive outcomes.

During our visit, we observed that people received support at times that suited them, and in ways that promoted independence and choice. Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of each person’s daily routines, ensuring support was delivered in a flexible and respectful manner.

Staff were familiar with people’s known patterns of behaviour, including subtle signs that might indicate distress or unmet needs. They used this insight to deliver timely, reassuring support, preventing escalation and promoting emotional stability. This proactive approach contributed to improved day‑to‑day experiences and long‑term wellbeing.

External professionals consistently gave highly positive feedback about the service’s commitment to delivering personalised, outcome‑focused care. One professional described staff at Hegarty Care as using a, “person-centred and creative approach, and general motivation and positivity.” They highlighted the team’s continual drive to achieve the best possible outcomes for those they support, describing their dedication as, “inspirational.”

The provider ensured people were fully informed about their rights around consent, and these rights were consistently respected when delivering person‑centred care and treatment. Staff demonstrated a clear understanding that consent is an ongoing process, not a single event, and they worked in ways that actively promoted people’s autonomy and involvement in decisions about their own care.

During the assessment, we found staff understood people’s communication plans extremely well. They used each person’s preferred communication methods consistently when seeking consent. Staff showed clear awareness of how individuals expressed agreement, refusal, or uncertainty, and they adapted their approach to ensure people were able to participate meaningfully in decision‑making. This included recognising subtle gestures, signs, symbols, and verbal cues, and responding sensitively to these.

Throughout the assessment, we observed staff checking in with people before offering support, clearly explaining what they were doing, and waiting for an unmistakable indication of consent before proceeding. Staff used visual prompts, simple language, and took time to ensure people understood information. They provided additional processing time where needed, supporting people to make informed and unhurried decisions.

The provider had embedded positive and consistent practices that supported people to remain at the centre of decisions about their care and treatment. Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). They followed the principles of the Act, supporting people to make their own decisions wherever possible and providing the right level of assistance to do so. Where people lacked capacity to make specific decisions, mental capacity assessments were carried out appropriately. These assessments were clear, decision‑specific, and detailed how people had been included in the process. They contained direct quotes where people had participated, ensuring their voice remained central even when they required support.

Where capacity assessments determined a person could not make a particular decision, staff followed a structured best‑interest decision‑making process. This included consideration of the person’s known wishes, feelings, and preferences, and ensured that any decisions were the least restrictive option available.

The registered manager ensured applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were submitted to the local authority in a timely and appropriate manner. This demonstrated a robust understanding of legal safeguards designed to protect people’s rights and ensure any restrictions were lawful, necessary, and proportionate.

Throughout our visit, we observed staff interacting with people in a way that encouraged self‑expression and autonomy. When people became distressed or required redirection, staff responded in a calm, empathic, and respectful way. This approach supported people to feel understood and safe, reinforcing trust and promoting positive experiences of care.