Heathercliffe Residential Care home

Updated 7 April 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 24th March 2021 and was announced.

Updated 7 April 2021

We carried out this inspection on 08 and 09 October 2018. The inspection was unannounced.

This service was last inspected in March 2016 and was rated Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Heathercliffe Residential Care Home 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.

There were 21 people living in the home at the time we carried out our inspection.

There was an experienced registered manager responsible for the day-to-day management of the service. 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. The registered manager had been working at the service for over 18 years.

We looked at how the service managed its recruitment of new staff and saw that this was done well and all of the required checks were carried out before staff commenced working at the home.

We spoke with seven people who lived in the home and one relative who all gave positive feedback about the home and the staff who worked in it. They told us that the staff supported people well. We saw that warm, positive relationships with people were apparent and many people described the staff as “like family.”

Staff spoken with and records seen confirmed training had been provided to enable them to support the people with their specific needs. We found staff were knowledgeable about the support needs of people in their care. We observed staff providing support to people throughout our inspection visit. We saw they knew people well and how they liked to be cared for.

We found medication procedures at the home were safe. Staff responsible for the administration of medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. Medicines were kept safely with appropriate arrangements for storage in place.

The registered manager understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions. We saw that people were supported to make their own decisions and their choices were respected. We asked the home to improve its audit trails of how it supported people with consent and capacity issues.

Care plans were person centred and driven by the people who lived who lived in the home. They detailed how people wished and needed to be cared for. They were regularly reviewed and updated as required. We saw that relatives were very involved in supporting staff to understand how people wished to be cared for.

The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included regular audits of the service and staff meetings to seek the views of staff about the service. They also regularly spoke with the people who lived in the home. The provider also provided close scrutiny of the service and was a regular presence in the home visiting almost daily.