CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Gerard Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Heathcotes (Rotherham) was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and no shortages of protective equipment.
This was a targeted inspection on 22 February 2022. Inspectors checked infection prevention and control, and asked about staffing pressures linked to COVID-19. The visit was announced one day beforehand.
The home had regular testing, screening for staff and visitors, suitable protective equipment, good cleaning and ventilation. Inspectors said they were assured that the home was managing infection risks, visits and admissions safely.
The home supported people and relatives to keep in contact. Its overall rating, and its rating for Safe, were both recorded as inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give a quality rating.
Infection testing and screening
People living in the home and staff took part in regular testing. Staff and visitors were also screened before entering.
“Staff and people using the service all undertook a regular programme of testing to keep everyone safe and free from infection.” from the report
Protective equipment
Inspectors saw staff using suitable protective equipment and found ample supplies available.
“There were no shortages of PPE and all staff we observed were wearing appropriate PPE when supporting people.” from the report
Clean and ventilated premises
The home was visibly clean, in good order and ventilated. Cleaning equipment was available.
“The premises were visibly clean, in good order and ventilated.” from the report
Keeping families in contact
People and their relatives were supported to maintain contact, with visits facilitated in line with government guidance.
“People living in the home and their relatives were supported to maintain contact.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing staffing pressures linked to COVID-19?
- 02What testing and screening do staff and visitors currently complete before entering the home?
- 03How are visits currently arranged and supported?
- 04How do you make sure there are enough protective equipment and cleaning supplies?
- 05How are infection outbreaks prevented or managed at the home?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not rate the other four key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 2022 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, January 2020
Heathcotes (Rotherham) was rated Good overall, but inspectors found medicine safety needed improvement.
This was the home’s first inspection since it registered. It was an unannounced, planned full inspection on 18 December 2019. One inspector spoke with people and staff and checked care records, recruitment files and management records.
The home supported six adults with learning disabilities and autism. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable risk assessments, good training and kind, respectful care. People were involved in decisions, supported to stay active and helped to access health care.
The main concern was medicines management. Inspectors found delays in giving medicines and recording them, missing temperature checks for stored medicines, and some controlled drugs recorded with only one signature. Some care plan reviews were also not completed as often as expected.
The overall rating was Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement, meaning some aspects were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good.
Kind and respectful care
People spoke positively about staff, and inspectors saw staff being supportive, kind and caring. Staff understood people’s communication needs.
“We observed staff interacting with people and found they were supportive, kind and caring.” from the report
People have choice
People were involved in care reviews, house meetings, staff interviews and choices about furnishings, food and activities.
“The provider encouraged people to take part in decisions about their care.” from the report
Skilled and supported staff
Staff received induction, training and regular supervision. Inspectors found enough staff and a consistent team who knew people well.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff. We saw there were enough staff to ensure people received support in line with their assessed needs.” from the report
Positive leadership
Inspectors found the manager and staff created a positive, person-centred culture. People, staff and professionals spoke highly of the management.
“There was a positive and person-centred culture, promoted by the manager.” from the report
Medicine records and checks
seriousMedicine administration was delayed on some occasions, and records were not always completed at the right time. Storage temperatures were not consistently checked, and some controlled drugs had only one signature.
“We identified improvements were needed to medicines management during the inspection site visit.” from the report
Care plans not always updated
needs fixingMost care plans were reviewed routinely, but some parts had not been updated as often as the provider expected. The managers said this would be addressed through supervision and team meetings.
“We found instances where some parts of the plan had not been updated with the frequency expected by the provider.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to prevent delays in giving medicines and recording them?
- 02How are medicine storage temperatures checked and recorded now?
- 03How do you make sure controlled drugs are recorded with the required signatures?
- 04How often will care plans be reviewed, and how will you check that updates are completed?
- 05How has the weekly medicines audit been changed so that these problems are identified promptly?
This was an unannounced, planned full comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the care and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 January 2020 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 Gerard Road
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 January 2019.
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
97 live-in carers within about an hour of Rotherham
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 80 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
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.