Heaton House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

The home delivered care that was responsive to the individual needs and preferences of each child. Staff worked collaboratively with children to develop personalised goals and care plans, ensuring support reflected what mattered most to them and adapted flexibly as their needs changed. Children accessed timely reviews and specialist healthcare where required, helping to prevent deterioration and promote holistic wellbeing. Reasonable adjustments enabled all children to understand and participate in their care.

There were clear, accessible processes for receiving feedback and complaints, which were investigated promptly with learning shared to improve practice. Staff placed a strong emphasis on listening to children’s lived experiences, which contributed to emotional safety and empowered children to feel heard, respected, and actively involved in decisions about their care.

This meant services were tailored to meet the needs of individuals and delivered to ensure flexibility, choice and continuity of care. However, children were not aware of their easy read risk management plans and there were no easy-read care plans in place. Since the inspection the provider has developed new easy read risk management and care plan templates for staff to use. However, as they were put in place after the inspection we have not been able to assess the effectiveness or if they are embedded into practice.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

The provider made sure children were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in children’s needs.

Children received person‑centred care that reflected their individual needs, preferences and aspirations. Care records we reviewed demonstrated that children were actively involved in shaping their care and support. Daily summaries were child‑focused and included a dedicated section capturing each child’s views, feelings and wishes. Children had a ‘zones of regulation’ chart in their room to remind them of the strategies to help them to identify their emotions and cope with these feelings so they can get back to feeling calm and ready to engage. These charts were co-designed with each child and included symbols and pictures. Staff reported that one child pointed to the red zone when they felt particularly dysregulated as a way of communicating their needs non-verbally.

Records were written with warmth, compassion and respect, accurately reflecting children’s emotional presentations and recognising their achievements, such as being acknowledged as Young Person of the Week. Staff knew children well and were attuned to their triggers and early warning signs, using personalised strategies to support their emotions when needed. regulation. One child said “staff know how to help you - they know each and everyone of us really well”.

The manager spoke about enabling positive risk taking, supported by risk reduction plans and risk reviews. Positive risk taking supports individuals in taking measured risks to achieve positive outcomes, such as improved independence, well-being, and personal growth

Children were not consistently aware of their easy read risk management plan or care plan. This meant children may not fully understand the risks that have been identified for them, how staff would support them to stay safe, or what their goals are between multidisciplinary meetings. Following the inspection, the home immediately took steps to develop easy-read care plans for each child.

The judgement for Care provision, Integration and continuity is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Providing Information is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The provider was exceptional at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff always involved children in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider had a complaints policy which was consistently followed. Children reported that they knew how to make a complaint. When children make a complaint about the service, they were supported to write it down. The complaint was then reviewed by the manager who replied to the children in writing to ensure that children understood the response and feet listened too. We saw examples of the outcomes of complaints made by children resulting in action for example: increasing the ordering of specific food items, and children tidying away activities to ensure a tidy, calm living space.

A monthly young people’s meeting provided a structured opportunity for children to give direct feedback on areas they feel could be improved within the home. Staff reported that these meetings had a positive impact on relationship building, while also offering children a valued space to recognise and celebrate their achievements.

Children met with care staff in the home regularly to provide feedback and make suggestions on improvements in the home. For example, we observed discussions between children and staff about a new house pet.

Listening to children’s voices within a children’s home is vital for safeguarding, building trust, and supporting their emotional safety. It helps staff understand each child’s lived experience, identify needs early, and tailor support accordingly. This approach ensures children feel safe, heard, and respected.

The judgement for Equity in access is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Equity in experiences and outcomes is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Planning for the future is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.