CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Heathcote Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were safe, and there were enough staff to meet their needs. Medicines, safeguarding, infection control and emergency arrangements were found to be safe, although recruitment records and some risk instructions needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not part of this inspection, so no new rating was given.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not part of this inspection, so no new rating was given. Inspectors did record that staff knew people well and supported their choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not part of this inspection, so no new rating was given.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers and staff worked closely together, involved people and relatives in decisions, and worked well with outside professionals. However, quality assurance checks were not always thorough enough.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring support, but recruitment checks and quality monitoring needed strengthening.
This was an unannounced inspection on 24 February 2023. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They also observed care and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practices, good infection control and appropriate safeguarding arrangements. People were supported to make choices, and staff knew them well.
There were some weaknesses. Recruitment records did not always explain gaps in employment or show that medical fitness had been checked. Risk instructions were not always clear, and quality checks had not found some of these issues. Managers acted immediately during the inspection, and the report made recommendations rather than recording any breaches.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and staff were available when people needed them.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's individual needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
People received medicines as prescribed. Records, storage, staff training and checks were found to be safe.
“People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Safeguarding and infection control
People, relatives and staff described the home as safe. Staff understood how to report abuse, and infection prevention arrangements were robust.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Positive staff culture
Staff said they felt supported and appreciated. Inspectors found that people, relatives and professionals were positive about the management and care.
“Staff felt appreciated and supported and were proud to work” from the report
Working with professionals
The home sought advice when needed and had good working relationships with health and social care professionals.
“The home worked well with health and social care professionals.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingThe recruitment process was not always followed. Some employment gaps were unexplained and medical fitness checks were missing or had not been reviewed.
“Gaps in employment were not always explained and the medical fitness of staff had not always been sought and reviewed.” from the report
Risk instructions
needs fixingRisk assessments covered people's needs, but instructions for staff on reducing risks were not always clear. Managers started improving them during the inspection.
“However, instructions for staff on how to reduce the risks for people were not always clear.” from the report
Quality monitoring
needs fixingThe home's audits had not identified the recruitment problems or the need to improve some risk documentation. Inspectors recommended stronger governance systems.
“Quality assurance systems in place to monitor and improve the standard of the home were not always robust.” from the report
- 01Have all staff recruitment records now been completed, including explanations for employment gaps and medical fitness checks?
- 02How are individual risks recorded now, and how do you make sure staff receive clear instructions about reducing those risks?
- 03What changes have been made to quality audits so they identify recruitment and risk-recording problems promptly?
- 04How do you check that medicines are given on time and that occasional medicines are administered consistently?
- 05How do you involve people and relatives in decisions about daily life and changes to the home?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not assessed and were not given new ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 March 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, May 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but some cleanliness and flooring problems needed attention.
Inspectors visited on 13 and 16 April 2018. The first visit was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, observed care, and checked care records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, good medicines support, suitable care planning and kind, respectful care. People were supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities.
There were some problems with cleanliness, smells and uneven flooring while carpets were being replaced. Regular temperature checks for the medicines room were also not yet in place. End of life care plans were being completed after the inspection. The overall Good rating stayed the same as at the previous inspection.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's assessed needs. Staff were familiar to people and call bells were answered without delay.
“People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to meet their assessed needs.” from the report
Kind and personal care
Staff knew people's histories and preferences. They used calm, personal approaches and respected privacy and dignity.
“Staff were kind and compassionate in their approach and interactions were caring and tactile.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded what mattered to people, and staff supported individual routines, activities, beliefs and communication needs.
“People had care plans which were person centred and included details about what was important to them and their likes and dislikes.” from the report
Management oversight
The management team used audits and meetings to identify gaps and plan changes. Staff received supervision, training and competency checks.
“Quality assurance measures were regular and used to identify gaps and drive changes where needed.” from the report
Cleanliness and smells
needs fixingSome toilets and bedroom floors were not clean, and one bedroom had a strong smell. The report says this was linked to a cleaner vacancy and that a new cleaner started after the inspection.
“People were not consistently supported in an environment which was clean, safe and free from malodour.” from the report
Uneven flooring
needs fixingCarpet replacement left some flooring uneven, including on a corridor and steps. Inspectors said this could create a walking risk, although replacement was in progress.
“Some carpets also needed replacing and this was in progress.” from the report
Medicines storage checks
needs fixingThe medicines room did not have regular temperature checks at the time of inspection. Management said these checks would be introduced.
“The medicines room did not have any regular temperature checks to ensure that medicines were stored safely” from the report
End of life plans
needs fixingAdvance care plans did not yet record people's end of life wishes and preferences. Three plans were sent to inspectors after the visit, and the remaining plans were being completed as a priority.
“Heathcote did not have advance care plans in place which reflected people's wishes and preferences for their end of life care.” from the report
- 01Have all carpet replacements been completed, including the corridor and steps, and how do you check that flooring is safe?
- 02What cleaning arrangements are now in place, and how do you monitor toilets, bedrooms and smells?
- 03Are regular medicines room temperature checks now recorded, and who reviews them?
- 04Have advance care plans been completed for every resident, including their preferred place of care and spiritual or religious wishes?
- 05How are care plans reviewed when a person's needs or preferences change?
This was an inspection of all five key questions, and the report says the overall Good rating remained unchanged from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 May 2018 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 Heathcote Care Home
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 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
15 live-in carers within about an hour of Dorset
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 £1,040 to £1,340 a week. 11 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Even when things get a bit chaotic (as they sometimes do!), you’ve handled it with patience and a sense of humour — which is gold.”
“Nina was patient, focussed on my aunt's physical well-being, and unfazed by what at the time was a new and uncertain situation”
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.