CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Heartly Green
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, safeguarding procedures were understood, and staffing was considered sufficient. Medicines, accidents, falls, equipment and infection control were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received training and support, and people's food, drink and healthcare needs were met. Inspectors found that food and fluid records were not always detailed or consistent.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives spoke positively about staff. People were treated with dignity, offered choices and encouraged to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Care plans varied in quality and detail, and supplementary care charts were completed inconsistently. Activities were available, but records did not show clearly how often people took part or whether the planned activities happened.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff said the home was well run and approachable. Audits and an improvement plan were being used to identify and track areas needing improvement.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but the home needs to improve care records, activity records and accessible information.
Inspectors visited the home on 11 and 12 January 2023. They spoke with people, relatives, visitors and staff. They reviewed care records, risk assessments, medicines records, safety information and quality checks.
People told inspectors they felt safe and were treated with kindness and respect. Staff were trained, medicines were managed safely, the home was clean, and people received support with food, drink and healthcare.
The Responsive rating was Requires Improvement. Care plans did not always contain enough consistent information, care charts were not always completed properly, and written records did not show clearly what activities people had received. The other four areas were rated Good, giving an overall rating of Good.
Safe care
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding, staffing was considered sufficient, and medicines were managed by trained staff whose competence was checked.
“Medicines were managed safely, by staff who had been trained and had their competency to administer medicines assessed at least once a year.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as caring and respectful. Inspectors found that people were offered choices and supported to maintain their independence.
“People were treated with dignity and respect by staff who knew them well.” from the report
Clean and prepared
The home was clean and infection control procedures were in place. Safety checks, fire arrangements and personal evacuation plans were also recorded.
“The home was clean with effective cleaning and infection control processes in place.” from the report
Active quality monitoring
The home used audits and an improvement plan. Inspectors found that the issues they identified had already been recorded as actions for improvement.
“Any issues we identified during the inspection were already listed on the improvement plan, which indicated the audit process was effective.” from the report
Care plan detail
needs fixingThe quality and amount of information varied between care plans. This could make it harder for staff to have a consistent record of each person's needs and wishes.
“Some care plans contained lots of person centred information and details of people's background and life histories, whereas others contained more limited information.” from the report
Care charts
needs fixingSupplementary charts for areas such as personal care and welfare checks were not always completed consistently or in enough detail.
“We also found supplementary charts; used to document specific aspects of people's care such as personal care or welfare checks, were being completed inconsistently.” from the report
Activity records
needs fixingActivities were offered, but written records were not being kept at the time of the inspection. This meant inspectors could not confirm whether the schedule was followed or how often people joined in.
“As such, we could not confirm the activity schedule was being followed or how often each person took part in activities of their choosing.” from the report
Accessible information
minorInformation was available in different formats, but some posters, including information about complaints, were not laid out clearly enough for everyone on each unit.
“However, the layout of posters used to explain and communicate information to people living at the home, for example the complaints process, required further consideration, to ensure people on each unit could understand them.” from the report
- 01How will you check that every electronic care plan contains enough accurate, person-centred information?
- 02What checks now make sure supplementary care charts are completed fully and consistently?
- 03How will you record which activities each person takes part in and how often?
- 04What changes have been made to posters and other information so people on every unit can understand them?
- 05What progress has been made with the additional activity coordinator and the improvement plan?
This inspection looked at all five key questions and infection prevention and control; inspectors visited on 11 and 12 January 2023, with inspection activity and evidence review continuing until 19 January 2023. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 February 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.
Every inspection of Heartly Green
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 October 2021.
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 Salford
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. 90 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.