Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Heartly Green

Goodpublished 7 February 2023, 3 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
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.
The latest report, explained

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.

What inspectors praised
  • 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
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Care plan detail

    needs fixing

    The 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 fixing

    Supplementary 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 fixing

    Activities 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

    minor

    Information 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
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How will you check that every electronic care plan contains enough accurate, person-centred information?
  2. 02What checks now make sure supplementary care charts are completed fully and consistently?
  3. 03How will you record which activities each person takes part in and how often?
  4. 04What changes have been made to posters and other information so people on every unit can understand them?
  5. 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Heartly Green

3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. February 2023Goodcurrent rating
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Heartly Green →

  2. March 2021Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated
  3. May 2019Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
  4. November 2016Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
  5. 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

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”
Marion L., about Primrose N.
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
Katrina R., about Camille F.
See live-in carers near SalfordProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.