CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Derby
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were assessed, staffing was considered sufficient and medicines were generally managed safely, although some controlled medicine signatures were missing.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, and people's health, nutrition and communication needs were assessed. The home worked within the Mental Capacity Act and supported people in the least restrictive way.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors found that staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in care planning and supported to make everyday choices and become more independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reviewed as people's needs changed. People were supported with communication, family relationships, interests, activities and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had approachable leadership and a positive culture, but quality monitoring was not effective enough. Some weekly audits had not been completed and the controlled medicines audit had missed missing signatures.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Heathcotes (Derby): Rated Good overall, but well-led Requires Improvement because quality checks were not completed on time.
Inspectors visited on 18 June 2019 after concerns about people's safety. They spoke with people, relatives, staff, the manager, an advocate and professionals. They observed care and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and supported to make choices, stay healthy, develop skills and take part in activities.
The well-led rating fell to Requires Improvement. Quality checks on medicines, first aid equipment and fire safety had not been completed since 20 May 2019. The overall rating remained Good, and the other four question ratings stayed Good, as at the previous inspection.
Safe care and staffing
Risks were assessed and managed while people were encouraged to keep their independence. Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
“There were enough staff to meet people's care and support needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Staff understood how people communicated and responded respectfully when people became distressed. People's privacy, dignity and choices were respected.
“People continued to be well cared for and treated with respect and kindness.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in their care plans and supported to make decisions, follow their interests and gain new skills.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in activities and maintain contact with family and the wider community.
“Staff were committed to enabling people to socialise and develop and maintain relationships.” from the report
Staff training
Staff received induction, ongoing training and supervision. Their competence was checked, including for people's specific support needs.
“Staff induction and ongoing training was comprehensive and in line with current legislation and nationally recognised best practice.” from the report
Late quality checks
needs fixingWeekly audits for medicines, first aid equipment and fire safety had not been completed since 20 May 2019. The manager said this would be addressed through training, supervision and more random checks.
“These had not been completed since 20 May 2019.” from the report
Missing medicine signatures
needs fixingControlled medicine stock levels and balances were correct, but some signatures were missing. The manager said the issue would be investigated and staff would be retrained if needed.
“Although the stock levels and balance were correct, we found missing signatures.” from the report
- 01How are you now making sure the weekly medicine, first aid and fire safety audits are completed on time?
- 02What did you find when you investigated the missing controlled medicine signatures?
- 03What retraining or supervision has staff received about medicine records?
- 04How often are random checks now carried out, and who reviews the results?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in checking whether care plans remain personalised and focused on positive outcomes?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive remained Good, while Well-led fell from Good to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 July 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, February 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
The announced inspection took place on 5 December 2017. Two inspectors spoke with four people living in the home and five staff members. They observed care, reviewed five people's care records, and checked staffing, training, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home supported up to eight people with learning disabilities and autism. Seven people lived there during the inspection. Inspectors found people were safe, involved in decisions, treated with kindness and supported to build daily living skills and independence.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the first inspection since the home registered with CQC on 12 October 2016.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff provide emotional support and respond calmly when people became anxious or upset. Staff treated people as individuals and respected their dignity.
“People were supported by kind, respectful and caring staff that knew them well.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and saw medicines being given safely. Records showed medicines were stored, checked and reviewed.
“There was sufficient staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Personalised communication
Care plans included people's communication preferences and were available in formats people could understand. Staff were given detailed guidance about how each person communicated.
“The service had developed very comprehensive communication plans for everyone using the service” from the report
Support for independence
People were involved in their care and encouraged to make choices, develop life skills and take positive risks. They were supported to use community services, education and employment.
“People received responsive and personalised care and support that promoted their daily living skills” from the report
Open management
Staff said they could raise concerns and influence improvements. The home used audits, meetings and incident reviews to check quality and make changes.
“The provider's governance system to assess and monitor the quality of service and drive improvements was robust and used effectively.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and plan support for my relative before they moved into the home?
- 02How would you support my relative to take positive risks while keeping them safe?
- 03What accessible communication format and approach would you use for my relative?
- 04How would you support my relative with medicines, including if they wanted to manage some medicines themselves?
- 05What goals could my relative work towards in daily living, education, employment or community activities?
This was the home's first comprehensive inspection since registering with CQC, and all five quality areas were assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 February 2018 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Derby
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 October 2016.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
78 live-in carers within about an hour of Derby
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
“Rachel is a quietly spoken, extremely caring person and looked after Val very well.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.