During an assessment under our new approach
Heaton House is a children's home providing support to children and young people aged between 10- and 18-years providing specialist therapeutic and rehabilitative residential placements for young people with complex mental health problems. At the time of our inspection there were 3 children using the service. The provider is registered with the CQC to carry out the regulated activity 'Treatment of disease, disorder or injury' at this location. Ofsted is the regulatory authority in respect of the care and accommodation whereas CQC is the regulatory authority in respect of the health aspects of the location.
CQC do not rate services that are defined as being a children's home and which are also registered with Ofsted.
We carried out this assessment onsite on 21st and 22nd April 2026. This was a full CQC assessment consisting of 19 quality statements across the key questions Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Our assessment included reviewing care records, speaking with children, parent/carers and staff (including senior leaders) and partner agencies, reviewing performance information and observing how care and treatment were delivered. The evidence base included contributions from 15 individuals, including children.
The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation relating to good governance. Improvements were noted during this assessment: however further improvements were still required to ensure there were effective systems and processes in place and were found to remain in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance.
Children made consistently good or excellent progress from their individual starting points. Targeted therapeutic interventions led to meaningful change; for example, one child accessed extended Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT), which enabled them to develop effective coping strategies and resulted in a significant reduction in self-harming behaviour.
Children who have experienced extended periods out of education were successfully supported to re-engage with school or college, where they achieved qualifications that prepared them for adulthood and greater independence. Positive outcomes also included family reunification, with one child making sufficient progress to successfully return home to the care of their parents.
Throughout their time in the home, there was a considerable reduction in incidents for individual children. This demonstrates the effectiveness of robust risk management plans and the impact of trauma-informed, nurturing relationships between practitioners and children, which support them to understand and manage their strong emotions more safely and confidently.
Overall, we found that the provider had a well‑embedded culture of safety, underpinned by clear processes, transparent incident management, and mostly effective safeguarding arrangements. Staff were well trained, understood their responsibilities, and consistently applied evidence‑based practice. Systems supported coordinated care and safe delegation of clinical tasks. We found children were meaningfully involved in decisions about their care and personalised approaches were in place ensuring their needs, preferences, and rights were consistently upheld. We observed how staff delivered compassionate, respectful care, and the provider placed high value on children’s emotional wellbeing and lived experiences.
Leadership was inclusive, visible, and improvement focused which helped foster a positive culture in which staff felt supported, valued, and confident to raise concerns. Governance arrangements were in place which ensured accountability and regular performance monitoring. Quality improvement processes were embedded, collaborative, and informed by both staff and children. Children at the home received high quality, person-centred care and experienced positive outcomes to help improve their health and wellbeing.
The home has been without a registered manager for a prolonged period, and the current manager has only recently applied for registration with CQC. In addition, there was no policy governing the safe use, storage or management of photographs of children taken on home mobile phones, including arrangements to ensure compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This created a risk of inappropriate handling or unauthorised sharing of children’s personal images, which could compromise children’s privacy, dignity and safeguarding.
Following the inspection, the provider updated its policy and procedures for the storage, archiving and disposal of records. However, the revised section was not fully aligned with national guidance and did not accurately reflect the service provided.
For example, the policy continued to refer to “patients”. Although appropriate consent forms were in place and reflected aspects of national guidance, this was not consistently mirrored in the policy. In particular, the policy did not clearly explain how children and parents would be informed about the use and retention of photographs and videos, or how long these would be kept. This reduced clarity for staff and limited consistency in practice.
There was no evidence that the updated policy had been effectively cascaded to staff or that provider assurance processes had been used to confirm staff awareness and understanding. As a result, we could not be assured that the policy had been embedded across the service.
There was weakness in the oversight of some of the provider’s own processes. Although policies are reviewed annually, leaders did not have effective systems to assure themselves that this is happening and that care staff have read, understood, and are working in line with them.
There was evidence of performance monitoring. Although audits were completed regularly, the review of audit findings requires strengthening to ensure they were purposeful and outcome‑focused, clearly reflected the period being audited, and demonstrate how learning was used to inform practice and improve service delivery. Since the inspection, the provider has taken steps to strengthen the audit process. However, we have not assessed the impact of these improvements, as they were implemented after the inspection.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found during this assessment.