CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Healey House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found that risks, medicines, staffing, recruitment and infection control were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward, but the supplied report text does not state that rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward, but the supplied report text does not state that rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward, but the supplied report text does not state that rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Audits and management oversight had improved, but the changes to care plans had not yet been fully put into practice. Inspectors said leadership and management were not always consistent.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but leadership and care-plan improvements were not yet fully consistent.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 05 June 2023 and 08 June 2023. One inspector spoke with six people, five staff and three health and social care professionals. They also observed care and checked six care plans and several medicines records.
The home was rated Good for Safe. Inspectors found that risks were identified and managed, medicines processes had improved, there were enough staff, and the home was clean. People said they felt safe and were treated well.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Quality checks had improved and were finding problems, but the new standard for person-centred care plans had not yet been applied throughout. The overall rating changed from Requires Improvement to Good because the other question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection.
Safe risk management
Inspectors found that risks were identified and managed effectively. Staff had clear information about how to support people safely.
“At this inspection we found risks to people were identified and addressed efficiently and effectively.” from the report
Kind and calm care
Staff were kind and caring. People appeared relaxed and said they enjoyed living at the home.
“Staff were kind and caring and created a calm and relaxed atmosphere for people.” from the report
Improved medicines processes
Medicines records and as-needed medicines protocols had improved since the previous inspection. Audits were identifying and addressing recording gaps.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made to documents relating to medicines management.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely. Staff were not rushed and responded quickly when people called.
“There were enough staff to support people safely. Staff responded to people quickly and did not appear rushed.” from the report
Better quality checks
The manager had improved oversight and introduced clearer audits. These checks were finding issues and prompting action.
“The registered manager had clear and effective audit processes to identify issues at the service and take steps to address them.” from the report
Care plans not all updated
needs fixingSome care plans had been made more detailed and person-centred, but this standard had not yet been applied to every part of every care plan.
“Further time was needed for the registered manager to apply this standard to all parts of people's care plans.” from the report
Leadership remained inconsistent
needs fixingAlthough governance had improved, inspectors still found that management and leadership did not always support consistently high-quality, person-centred care.
“This meant the service management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.” from the report
- 01Have all care plans now been updated to the person-centred standard identified in the report?
- 02How often are care-plan changes checked to make sure they have been fully put into practice?
- 03How do your medicines audits identify and correct gaps in administration records?
- 04What action do you take when audits identify a problem with a person's care or records?
- 05What were the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the previous comprehensive inspection?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 June 2023 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, December 2022
Healey House is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care but gaps in medicines, care records and oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 14 and 15 November 2022. One inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe and Well-led were Requires Improvement. Responsive was Good. Inspectors found gaps in medicine records, some care plans and risk assessments, and quality checks that had not found these problems.
People said they felt safe and that staff were kind, respectful and listened to them. There were enough staff, communication was good, complaints were acted on and activities had improved, although more work was needed to make these improvements consistent.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as kind, respectful and willing to listen. Staff knew people well and could explain how to support them.
“All staff are really kind and respectful. They listen to everything I ask or want to talk about, they listen to any concerns I have and act upon it.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely. Call bells were answered promptly and staffing levels had been increased after people raised concerns.
“There were enough staff to support people safely. We saw staff were not rushed and spent time with people.” from the report
Communication support
Care plans gave staff information about communication needs, including the use of glasses and hearing aids. People said staff communicated in ways they could understand.
“People told us staff communicated with them in a way they could understand.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home had started to provide more activities based on people's interests. People could attend social activities and outings, or receive more individual support.
“Staff had begun to provide more person-centred activities for people based on what people wanted to do.” from the report
Complaints were acted on
People and relatives felt able to raise concerns. The home kept a complaints log and discussed complaints with staff to improve practice.
“Each complaint had been addressed appropriately and action was taken where needed.” from the report
Medicine records
seriousThere were gaps in medicine administration records. Some as-needed medicine instructions did not match the records, and the home's audits had not found these issues.
“Medicines were not always managed safely. Although people had received their medicines there were some gaps in recording on people's medication administration records (MARs).” from the report
Incomplete risk information
seriousSome care plans and risk assessments were not current or did not identify important risks. One person awaiting swallowing support did not have a choking risk assessment.
“People's care plans and risk assessment were not always up to date and did not always identify risks to people.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits did not identify problems found by inspectors in care plans, risk assessments and medicine records. This contributed to a breach of good governance requirements.
“Quality assurance processes were not always effective in identifying concerns and areas for improvement.” from the report
Improvements not embedded
needs fixingThe provider had not consistently sustained improvements from previous inspections. Some care plans remained generic and did not describe people's specific likes, dislikes or preferences.
“The provider had failed to ensure improvements were sustained and embedded into daily practice.” from the report
- 01What has been done to stop gaps appearing in medicine administration records?
- 02How have as-needed medicine protocols been checked against each person's current medicines?
- 03How will you make sure every person's care plan and risk assessment reflects their current needs, including swallowing or diabetes risks?
- 04What results have your new quality and medicine audit systems found since the inspection?
- 05How are you making sure the improvements to activities are now consistent and continue to meet people's interests?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 December 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.
Every inspection of Healey House
7 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2022Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 December 2010.
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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.