CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Halden Heights Care Community
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, appropriate risk assessments, safe medicines arrangements and systems for learning from accidents and incidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before admission and staff received training and supervision. People were supported with nutrition, hydration, healthcare, rehabilitation and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Staff knew people's preferences, sought consent and respected privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People had access to activities, religious support, communication formats, complaint procedures and dignified end of life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management team. Audits, surveys, meetings and action plans were used to monitor quality and make improvements.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Halden Heights Care Community was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 27 August 2019. Inspectors spoke with 15 people, five relatives, 10 staff and a visiting GP. They also reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files and management checks.
People and relatives gave positive feedback. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, personalised care plans and good support with health, food and fluids. Staff treated people with kindness, respected privacy and supported people's choices.
The home also provided activities, end of life support and ways for people and relatives to give feedback. The management team used audits and feedback to make improvements. All five areas were rated Good, the same as at the previous inspection.
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's backgrounds, preferences and needs. Staff used them to guide individual support.
“People's care plans were person-centred and informed staff how the person wanted to be supported.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Staffing was based on people's needs, and inspectors found enough nurses and care staff. Medicines were administered by trained registered nurses, with a new electronic system linking to the pharmacy and GP.
“People told us there were enough staff available throughout the day and night.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff positively. Inspectors saw warm interactions and found that staff protected privacy and dignity.
“Staff communication with people in a warm and friendly way. People told us the staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Good health support
The home worked closely with healthcare professionals, including a weekly visiting GP. People's health needs, nutrition and hydration were monitored.
“People were supported to maintain their nutrition and hydration with a healthy balanced diet and access to fluids.” from the report
Active improvement
The management team used audits, surveys and feedback to identify changes. Examples included new beds, sensor mats and pressure-relieving chairs.
“Quality assurance systems, such as audits, checks and observations were used effectively to monitor all aspects of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How is the electronic medicines system working now, and what checks are in place if it identifies an error?
- 02How would you meet my relative's specific nursing, dementia, rehabilitation or health needs?
- 03How are care plans reviewed with residents and relatives when people's needs or preferences change?
- 04What activities would be suitable for my relative, and how are their choices respected if they prefer time alone?
- 05How are end of life wishes recorded, reviewed and shared with staff and healthcare professionals?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, including the premises and care provided; the previous Good ratings were retained. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 October 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, January 2017
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with strong management systems.
This was an unannounced inspection on 17 November 2016. Two inspectors, an inspection manager and two experts by experience visited the home. They spoke with 16 people, seven relatives and staff, observed care, and reviewed care records, medicines records, audits and training records.
Inspectors found enough suitably trained staff. People were supported safely with medicines, risks were assessed, and recruitment checks had been completed. Staff understood safeguarding and the Mental Capacity Act. People were supported with food, drink and healthcare.
Inspectors saw warm and respectful care. Staff protected people's privacy, involved them in decisions and supported activities and hobbies. Care plans were detailed and up to date. The home had a complaints process, regular feedback meetings and quality checks. The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough suitably trained staff and saw medicines being given carefully and recorded correctly.
“People were cared for by a sufficient number of appropriately trained staff who were knowledgeable about procedures to keep people safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were calm, compassionate and respectful. They protected people's privacy and encouraged independence.
“Staff responded to people in a calm and reassuring manner.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans included people's preferences and routines. They were updated when people's needs changed.
“Care plans were person centred, written in detail and had been amended and updated as people's care needs changed.” from the report
Activities and social contact
People could choose from group and individual activities, including gardening, arts and crafts, quizzes and reminiscence sessions.
“There was a range of interests, hobbies and activities available to people who lived at the service.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff had several ways to give feedback. Audits and checks were used to review care and safety.
“Quality assurance systems were in place which continually reviewed the quality and safety of people's care.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and update my relative's care plan if their needs change?
- 02How will you involve me and my relative in care reviews and best-interest decisions?
- 03How do you make sure there are enough suitably trained staff on each shift?
- 04What activities would match my relative's interests, abilities and routines?
- 05How should I raise a concern or complaint, and how will you tell me what action has been taken?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 January 2017 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 Halden Heights Care Community
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Halden Heights Care Community →
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Halden Heights Care Community →
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 October 2011.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.