CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Heartland Manor
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found staff understood safeguarding, risks were assessed, premises checks were completed and medicines were safely managed. Feedback about staffing levels was mixed, but inspectors found there appeared to be enough staff during the visit.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found thorough audits, learning from incidents and positive relationships with health and social care professionals. They also noted that repeated management changes had unsettled staff.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Heartland Manor, identified in the report as Forest Oaks: Rated Good; inspectors found safe care and good oversight, but staffing feedback and frequent management changes need attention.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 16, 17 and 18 May 2022. Two inspectors visited, spoke with people, staff and relatives, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files and other documents. Relatives were also contacted by telephone after the visit.
Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led. They found safeguarding, risk checks, recruitment, medicines, infection control and incident learning were generally managed well. The home was clean and equipment and buildings were regularly checked.
Feedback about staffing was mixed. Staffing was increased during the inspection. There had also been several management changes, which staff found unsettling, although an interim manager and the provider's chief executive had given the service stability.
Both inspected areas were rated Good. The overall rating stayed Good, but the Effective, Caring and Responsive questions were not inspected during this visit. Their previous ratings were used when calculating the overall rating.
Safeguarding and risk checks
Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to raise concerns. Individual and building-related risks were assessed, with actions recorded to reduce harm.
“People were cared for by staff trained in safeguarding who were confident concerns shared would be acted on.” from the report
Learning from incidents
Accidents, near misses and medicines errors were reviewed. Learning was shared with staff and extra training was provided when needed.
“All accidents, incidents and near misses were reviewed and learning taken from them and shared.” from the report
Quality checks
The provider carried out regular audits covering areas such as medicines, nutrition, infection control, dignity and care plans.
“There were thorough audits of the service.” from the report
Partnership working
The home had developed positive links with health and social care professionals and community groups.
“The provider had forged positive working relationships with health and social care professionals and in the community.” from the report
Mixed staffing feedback
needs fixingSome people, relatives and staff said staffing was sometimes too low or call bells took too long to answer. Staffing had been increased, but the service had also experienced recruitment problems and vacancies.
“There's not always enough staff. You ring your bell and it takes quite a time for someone to come.” from the report
Frequent management changes
needs fixingStaff said repeated changes in managers were disruptive and unsettling. A new manager started on the first day of the inspection and had not yet begun their registration application.
“Staff members had found the numerous changes to the management team disruptive and unsettling.” from the report
Medicines system familiarity
minorA new electronic medicines recording system had been introduced after errors. One staff member said they did not use it often enough to remain familiar with it.
“However, one staff member needed to use the system more frequently to stay familiar with it.” from the report
Cleaning walking aids
minorInspectors found some walking aids needed cleaning. The provider agreed to check them and add them to the cleaning schedule.
“We saw some walking aids needed to be cleaned and told the CEO who agreed to check them and add them to a cleaning schedule.” from the report
- 01How many care staff and nurses are planned for each shift, including weekends and periods when residents have recently returned from hospital?
- 02What has changed since the staffing increase from seven to eight health care assistants during mornings and afternoons?
- 03What is the current manager's registration position, and how will the service remain stable if management changes again?
- 04How often does each staff member use the electronic medicines system, and how is competence checked?
- 05What are the current ratings and evidence for Effective, Caring and Responsive, which were not assessed in this inspection?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other key-question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 June 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 2022
Forest Oaks was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection control and safe arrangements for visiting.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 28 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures were affecting care.
The home had thorough and regularly updated COVID-19 policies. Staff had infection control training and used protective equipment properly. Inspectors were assured that testing, hygiene, social distancing, admissions and outbreak arrangements were in place.
Families could keep in contact with people living at the home. Visitors used designated well-ventilated areas and followed safety procedures. The home was meeting the requirement for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals to be vaccinated.
The overall service was inspected but not rated. The Safe question was also inspected but not rated, so this visit does not provide a new quality rating for the home.
Up-to-date infection policies
The home's COVID-19 risk policies were described as thorough and regularly updated.
“Policies and procedures in relation to the management of risks associated with COVID-19 were thorough and updated regularly.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff had infection prevention and control training and inspectors found that they followed good practice when using protective equipment.
“Staff had received infection prevention and control training and adhered to good practice in relation to the use of personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Safe family visits
The home had arrangements for families and health professionals to visit safely, including designated well-ventilated areas and safety procedures.
“There were arrangements in place for visiting families and health professionals to safely visit people living at the service.” from the report
Managing infection risks
The provider used zoning and cohorting when needed and had arrangements for testing, hygiene and managing outbreaks.
“The provider was aware of and had appropriately used zoning and cohorting measures when required to keep people safe.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What measures are currently in place if COVID-19 causes staffing pressures, and have these affected people's care?
- 02How are family visits arranged now, and what safety procedures must visitors follow?
- 03How often are staff and people living at the home tested, and what happens after a positive result?
- 04When are zoning or cohorting measures used, and how would these affect a relative's daily life and visits?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 February 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 Heartland Manor
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.