CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Headroomgate
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, safe medicines practice, enough suitably skilled staff, safe recruitment and good infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff supported people's health, nutrition and access to healthcare. Staff were trained and supported, and the home followed the Mental Capacity Act principles described in the report.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind, considerate and respectful. Staff supported privacy, dignity, independence and involvement in decisions about care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people were involved in reviewing their care plans. The home supported activities, relationships, communication needs, complaints and end of life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear responsibilities, regular quality checks and a manager who listened to people and staff. The home worked with health and social care professionals and acted on identified improvements.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Good in every area; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with effective management.
This was an unannounced inspection on 19 February 2020. Two inspectors and an expert by experience spoke with six people living at the home, four relatives and staff. They reviewed medicines records, parts of three care records, management information and the condition of the building.
Inspectors found that people were safe, had enough staff, received medicines as prescribed and lived in a clean home. Staff supported people's health, nutrition, choices and independence. People and relatives described staff as kind, respectful and responsive.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous inspection, published on 15 September 2017, also rated the home Good.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt reassured about safety. Inspectors found risk assessments, safeguarding training and enough staff to meet people's needs.
“People told us they felt they were looked after safely by the staff team.” from the report
Good health and nutrition support
Staff helped people access healthcare promptly and understood their health conditions. People said they had enough food, drink and choice at mealtimes.
“People told us the food was excellent and they got plenty of choice.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind and considerate. Staff supported privacy, dignity, independence and people's individual beliefs and preferences.
“People told us staff were kind and considerate and treated them in a sensitive and caring way.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
People helped shape their care plans and could take part in activities at the home and in the local community. Staff also supported people's communication and end of life preferences.
“People were involved in reviewing their care plans which were informative and person-centred.” from the report
Open management
The manager sought people's views, listened to concerns and used audits and staff discussions to monitor quality and make improvements.
“The registered manager sought people's views through informal discussions, meetings and surveys.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and manage my relative's specific risks while still supporting their independence?
- 02How will you make sure my relative's medicines are reviewed and given safely?
- 03How will you involve my relative and our family in planning and reviewing their care?
- 04What activities and community opportunities would be suitable for my relative?
- 05How would you support my relative's communication, healthcare and end of life preferences?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions; all five ratings were assessed and remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 March 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.
What inspectors found, September 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with activities still being developed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 July 2017. One inspector observed care, meals and activities, spoke with six people, the manager and four staff, and checked care, medicines, staff and safety records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training, good food and healthcare support, respectful care, regularly reviewed care plans and approachable leadership.
The previous inspection in May 2016 found breaches about safe care and treatment and dignity and respect. This inspection found the provider had made improvements and was meeting the legal requirements. The home had 18 people living there and was registered for up to 19.
Safe care and medicines
Inspectors saw staff using safe techniques and found medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely.
“We saw staff used safe systems when administering medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff positively, and inspectors observed kind, caring and respectful interactions.
“During our observations, we saw staff were kind, caring, compassionate and respectful during their interactions with people.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences and were reviewed after changes in circumstances.
“This showed the provider operated systems to gather personalised information to guide staff to deliver support that was responsive to peoples' needs.” from the report
Strong leadership
The manager was visible and approachable. The home used audits, meetings and questionnaires to monitor quality.
“The registered manager had oversight of and acted to maintain the quality of the service provided.” from the report
Activities were still being developed
minorSome people often did not want to join activities in the home. The manager was working with each person to provide activities better matched to individual needs.
“The registered manager explained they were undertaking work with each person to try to tailor more activities to people's individual needs.” from the report
- 01How will you tailor activities to my relative's interests, needs and choices?
- 02How do you make sure care plans and risk assessments are updated promptly when someone's circumstances change?
- 03How do you check that medicines continue to be administered and recorded safely?
- 04What changes were made after the May 2016 inspection, and how do you make sure they remain in place?
- 05How can my relative or our family raise a concern, and how will it be followed up?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and checking improvements since the May 2016 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 September 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 Headroomgate
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 July 2015.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.