CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Healy House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and risks were generally assessed and managed. Inspectors found missing radiator guards and unsecured wardrobes, but these were fixed during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had governance systems, audits and an approachable manager. Inspectors found that one incident had not been reported to the CQC and recommended stronger reporting procedures.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Healy House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but identified issues with safety checks, incident reporting and family communication.
This was a focused inspection on 28 and 30 November 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at whether people were safe and how the home was managed. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, reviewed care and medicines records, and toured the building.
The home supported six people at the time, with capacity for 12. People said they felt safe and received kind, individual support. Staff were described as available and familiar with people's needs. Medicines, infection control, staffing and risk management were generally handled well.
Inspectors found radiator guards missing and some wardrobes unsecured. These issues were fixed during the inspection. One incident had not been reported to the CQC, and records of individual self-harm incidents were not being reviewed centrally. The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led, while the other three ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns, and investigations and discussions with the local authority were recorded.
“People felt safe in the service.” from the report
Kind and individual care
People received compassionate support that reflected their mental health needs. Staff encouraged independence and involved people in weekly care reviews.
“People received kind and compassionate care.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were suitable for people's needs. Staff were recruited with the required checks.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Medicines and infection control
Medicines were stored securely and managed through established systems. Inspectors were assured that infection prevention arrangements were being followed.
“Systems and processes were in place to safely manage people's medicines.” from the report
Open management
The manager responded quickly to issues found during the inspection. Audits and feedback were used to identify improvements.
“During our inspection the registered manager was open and transparent.” from the report
Safety equipment
seriousRadiator guards were missing in people's rooms and wardrobes were not secured to walls, creating a risk of harm. The provider fixed these issues during the inspection and added checks to daily audits.
“This placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Incident reporting
needs fixingOne incident had not been reported to the CQC when required. Inspectors recommended that the home strengthen its reporting procedures.
“Reporting requirements were not always being followed.” from the report
Reviewing self-harm incidents
needs fixingIndividual self-harm incidents were not being reviewed centrally to identify wider patterns. A new tool was introduced during the inspection.
“We observed individual incidences of self-harm were not recorded and reviewed centrally to look for trends and themes.” from the report
Family communication
minorRelatives said they had limited involvement and would benefit from more communication with the manager and staff.
“They told us more communication with the registered manager and staff would be beneficial.” from the report
As-needed medicines records
minorProtocols for medicines given when needed were in place, but inspectors said they needed more detail.
“We observed protocols for 'as and when' medicine were in place although they would benefit from more detail.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that radiator guards are in place and wardrobes are secured?
- 02How do you record and review self-harm incidents to identify patterns or repeated risks?
- 03What procedure do you follow to make sure incidents that must be reported to the CQC are reported on time?
- 04How will you keep relatives more involved and improve communication with families?
- 05What extra detail is now included in instructions for medicines given when needed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the Effective, Caring and Responsive ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 January 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, July 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with earlier legal breaches resolved.
This was an unannounced inspection on 8 and 9 May 2019. One inspector reviewed care records, medicine and recruitment records, policies, complaints, incidents and audits. They also spoke with people living in the home, staff and the manager.
The home supported six people, although it was registered for up to eight adults with mental health support needs. Inspectors found safe care, suitable staffing, improved medicine checks and safe recruitment. People were involved in their care, supported to become more independent and helped to access health services.
The overall rating was Good. All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led had improved since the previous inspection, while Caring remained Good.
Safe care and medicines
Inspectors found that people received safe care and that medicine records and stock balances were accurate.
“People received safe care from competent and skilled staff.” from the report
Support for independence
People were encouraged to develop daily living skills and some were working towards more independent housing.
“People were encouraged to maintain and develop their skills to increase their independence.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as friendly, caring and respectful. The home supported people to express their views and make choices.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and interests. Staff reviewed them monthly and responded to changes.
“People received personalised care which reflected their needs and preferences.” from the report
Partnership working
The home worked with mental health professionals and community services to provide consistent support.
“The provider worked in partnership with community mental health services.” from the report
Staff understanding of behaviour paperwork
needs fixingNot all staff understood how to use some paperwork for assessing and understanding people's behaviours. The manager acted immediately, but inspectors said they would check staff knowledge at the next inspection.
“However, we found not all staff understood how to use some of the paperwork in relation to assessing and understanding some people's behaviours.” from the report
Complaint records
needs fixingComplaints had been recorded, but it was not clear how they had been investigated. The manager completed the records during the inspection.
“Complaints had been recorded but it was not possible to see how these had been investigated.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that all staff understand the paperwork used to assess and understand people's behaviours?
- 02How are complaints investigated, recorded and checked by the manager?
- 03What support is available for people who are subject to restrictive practices involving finances or property?
- 04Has the planned first aid training tailored to mental health needs been completed?
- 05How will you support my relative to build independence or move on to more independent housing?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; four areas had improved since the previous inspection and Caring remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 July 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.
Every inspection of Healy House
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 September 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
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.