CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Headonhey
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visitors, testing, protective equipment, cleaning and outbreak response.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and safe visiting arrangements during a COVID-19 outbreak.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 9 February 2022. The inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, and asked about staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
They found safe visiting arrangements, regular testing and appropriate use of protective equipment. The home was clean, staff had infection control training, and vaccination or exemption checks were in place for staff and professional visitors.
Staff from other services covered colleagues who were isolating. These staff already knew the people living at the home, and the arrangements had been risk assessed.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not provide a new overall quality rating.
Infection control training
Staff had regular training in infection control and protective equipment. Inspectors observed staff using the correct equipment.
“Staff had completed regular infection control and use of PPE training.” from the report
Clean home
The home was clean, with daily cleaning schedules completed by the housekeeper and staff.
“The home was clean throughout. A housekeeper and staff completed daily cleaning schedules.” from the report
Staff vaccination and testing
Staff were vaccinated or exempt and took part in regular testing. Professional visitors were checked before entering.
“All staff had had their COVID-19 vaccinations, or were exempt, and took part in the regular testing programme at the home.” from the report
Staffing cover
Staff from other services covered colleagues who were isolating. The cover was risk assessed and involved staff who already knew the residents.
“These moves were risk assessed and involved members of staff who already knew the people living at the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visiting arrangements currently managed, including testing and the use of the external marquee?
- 02How do you cover shifts when staff are isolating or unavailable, and will replacement staff already know my relative?
- 03How often are staff trained and checked on infection control and use of protective equipment?
- 04How do you manage future infection outbreaks and keep families informed?
- 05Which current ratings cover areas that were not assessed during this inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide ratings for the other care areas. 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, February 2020
Headonhey rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, but end-of-life training and planning needed further work.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 7 and 8 January 2020. One inspector spoke with a person living at the home, relatives and staff. They also observed care and checked care plans, training records, audits, maintenance records and policies.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines, detailed care plans and support for people to make choices, build independence and take part in activities.
The main area needing improvement was end-of-life care. Staff had not yet received training, and discussions about people's wishes and relatives' preferences had not always been fully completed. The home was not supporting anyone at the end of their life during the inspection.
The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection published on 12 July 2017. Good means inspectors found the service met the relevant standards at the time of this inspection, although some improvements were still needed.
Safe medicines
Medicines were administered using clear routines. The records checked were accurate, and staff had been trained and assessed as competent.
“The medication administration records we checked were accurate and easy to follow.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's needs, wishes and communication methods in detail. Staff supported people to make choices and become more independent.
“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
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff providing patient and compassionate support. People’s dignity, privacy and independence were respected.
“Our observations throughout the inspection indicated that staff were warm, kind and caring in their interactions with people.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People took part in activities in the home and local community, including trips, exercise, arts and crafts, swimming and holidays. Staff also supported people's relationships.
“We saw a varied range of activities on offer which included, music, arts and crafts, exercise, trips to local cafes, restaurants, swimming and supported holidays.” from the report
End-of-life staff training
needs fixingSupport staff had not received end-of-life care training when inspectors visited. The training manager said this was being sourced.
“However, we found the support staff had not received training in end of life care.” from the report
- 01What end-of-life care training have support staff completed since this inspection?
- 02How do you discuss and record a person's end-of-life wishes if they cannot communicate verbally or may find the subject distressing?
- 03How are relatives involved in recording and reviewing end-of-life preferences?
- 04How will you support my relative's particular communication methods, such as gestures, facial expressions, pictures or Makaton?
- 05What activities and community outings would be suitable for my relative's interests and abilities?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 February 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 Headonhey
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 January 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Trafford
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. 91 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.