You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Heathcotes (Wigston). We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.
All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 6 May 2014
Date of Publication: 24 May 2014
Inspection Report published 24 May 2014 PDF


Inspection carried out on 6 May 2014

During a routine inspection

We recently undertook an inspection visit to Heathcotes (Wigston). We spoke with four people who used the service and reviewed three people�s care records. During our inspection visit we also observed people who used the service and how they were supported by the home�s staff. We spoke with five staff that supported people and reviewed their recruitment and training records. We also checked the records in relation to the management of the service. We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe with the staff that supported them. People were helped to take part in activities that were of interest to them and used other community facilities such as the leisure centre. Throughout our visit we saw staff treated people with respect. Staff helped people with their daily living skills and to do things that promoted their independence.

People told us they felt safe and secure because they were cared for in an environment that had been maintained. People were able to access all areas of home safely. Communal areas were suitably furnished, which made it homely and comfortable. People had decorated and personalised their room to reflect their interests and other things that were important to them. All the bedrooms had an en-suite washroom facility, which promoted their privacy and dignity.

We, the Care Quality Commission, monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Staff training records showed staff had been trained in Mental Capacity Act 2005 and DoLS. This meant that people could be confident that their best interests would be represented and that their wellbeing would be met reliably.

The staff at Heathcotes (Wigston) had been recruited properly. Checks had been carried out on their background to help ensure they were fit and safe to work with people who used the service.

Is the service effective?

People told us that staff supported them with their daily care needs. Staff were attentive and understood the support each person required. People told us that staff helped to promote their independence, supported them to take part in meaningful activities and to access other social amenities in the community. Records we looked at confirmed that people�s care needs were met safely and that they had access to a range of health care professionals. It was clear from our observations that staff had a good understanding of people�s needs and that they knew them well.

Staff were trained and qualified for their job role. Staff understood how to support each person, which helped to ensure that any risks identified could be managed. The staff training matrix we reviewed showed that the provider had taken steps to ensure staff kept their knowledge and skills up to date and in line with current best practice.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. Staff recognised how each person communicated and expressed themselves. This helped to ensure that people�s comments and views about how they were cared for would be acted on. Staff were caring and vigilant to any potential risks that could be harmful to people. We saw staff helped people individually and in a manner that respected the person as an individual. People were involved to make decisions about their care needs, lifestyle and aspirations. Records we looked at showed people�s views and preferences were taken into account and respected.

Staff were aware of people�s preferred routines and interests. This included support to attend college, day centres and to use other community amenities. Staff encouraged people to be involved in daily living tasks to help promote their independence. People told us that staff helped them to keep in contact with their family, which helped to promote their wellbeing and family identity.

People were given information about the advocacy service when they moved to the home. Information was produced in a format so that it was suitable for the person to understand, which included the use of pictures and photographs. This meant that people could access additional support and advice when required. Staff had received ongoing training to provide people with the care they needed and knew how to access support from other health and social care professionals when required.

Is this service responsive?

People had the opportunity to visit the home to make sure it was the right place for them and that their needs would be met. People�s needs had been assessed before they moved to the home. Staff had been trained to safely provide the care and support that people needed. People had access to health care professionals such as the doctor, to meet their health needs. Records confirmed people�s preferences and expectations had been recorded, and the care and support had been provided in accordance with their wishes.

We talked to one person about life at Heathcotes (Wigston). They told us what they liked about the home and how the staff helped them. Their comments confirmed that their experience of living at Heathcotes (Wigston) had had a positive impact on them.

Staff were trained to support people safely and recognised signs that would indicate someone may be unhappy or had a concern. It was clear from our observations that staff understood their responsibility and how to protect people from any unforeseeable harm or risks.

Is this service well led?

People�s personal care records and other records kept in the home were accurate and up to date. People knew about the information in their care records because it was produced in a format that they could understand and the content was discussed with them. People�s care needs were reviewed regularly to make sure any new needs could be met reliably. Records showed the home�s staff worked with other agencies and services to help ensure people received their care and support that was co-ordinated and managed.

The home had a system in place to assure the quality of service they provided and acted on any feedback and comments received. Satisfaction surveys were used to gather the views of people who lived at the home and their relatives. Regular meetings were held with people who used the service and their relatives where they could make comments and give feedback on the quality of service provided. They also had the opportunity to comment on any proposed changes to the home that could affect their wellbeing. The complaints policy and procedure were used effectively for the benefit of people living at the home and for making continued improvement to the quality of service provided.

The provider and manager carried out regular checks to help ensure people�s health, safety and wellbeing were protected. Staff received regular training to ensure people�s needs could be met safely and reliably. Information from incidents and accidents had been analysed and used to identify changes and improvements, and minimise the risk of them happening again. Prompt action had been taken to improve the quality of service provided and put right any shortfalls that were found.