CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Heathercroft
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, but the home's leadership and improvement checks Required Improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection in November 2019. One inspector spoke with people, staff, managers and relatives. They reviewed care records, staff files and quality checks, and observed how staff and people interacted.
The inspectors found the home was safe, effective, caring and responsive. People had personalised care plans, suitable support with medicines and health needs, and opportunities for choice, independence, activities and relationships.
The well-led rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement. The home had quality checks, but some problems found through those checks were not acted on. Areas needing redecoration had not been dealt with, and formal staff supervision had only recently become regular.
The overall Good rating means the inspectors judged that people received good care overall. It does not mean everything was perfect, so the home's progress on leadership, repairs and quality checks is important to ask about.
People felt safe
Relatives told inspectors that people were safe and well cared for. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and how to report concerns.
“They [staff] are absolutely fantastic, they keep people safe and well cared for.” from the report
Personalised care
The new care planning format recorded people's needs, risks, preferences and choices in detail. Relatives were involved where appropriate.
“This is a comprehensive outcome based assessment process individualised to each person.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed respectful interactions. People and relatives said staff knew them well, listened to them and involved them in decisions.
“The staff know people well and they are really caring towards them.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Only trained staff supported people with medicines. Records had no unexplained gaps, and stored medicines matched the recorded levels.
“People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to follow hobbies, attend social clubs, visit others, go shopping and take holidays. Staff encouraged safe, positive risk-taking.
“Staff supported and encouraged people to pursue hobbies and interests inside and outside the home environment.” from the report
Repairs and redecoration
needs fixingBathrooms, the hall, stairs and landing areas needed redecoration. These needs had been identified but had not been dealt with by the inspection.
“Some areas of the home needed refurbishment as the decorations were tired.” from the report
Quality checks did not always lead to action
needs fixingThe provider had audits, but did not always complete the improvements those audits identified. Some issues found by inspectors were also missing from audit reports.
“Some areas of need identified in these audits were not always addressed as was required in the provider's own guidelines.” from the report
Staff supervision had been irregular
minorFormal one-to-one supervision was irregular until shortly before the inspection. Managers had introduced a new process, but it was still recent.
“Staff had only recently started to receive formal and regular one to one supervision support.” from the report
- 01Have the bathrooms, hall, stairs and landing areas now been redecorated, and what remains outstanding?
- 02How do you now make sure issues found in quality audits are given an owner, deadline and follow-up check?
- 03Are all staff now receiving regular one-to-one supervision, and how often does this happen?
- 04How is feedback specific to this home collected, analysed and turned into an action plan?
- 05How will you show us that the new Plan for Life care plans remain up to date and reflect the person's choices?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided; all five ratings were assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 December 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.
What inspectors found, June 2017
Heathercroft was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support with effective management.
This was an unannounced inspection on 22 May 2017. One inspector spoke with five people living in the home, seven staff members, two relatives and two outside health and social care professionals. The inspector also reviewed care and medicine records, staff files, the building and management checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicines systems and detailed risk assessments. Staff had training and supervision, and people had access to food, healthcare and community activities.
Inspectors found that care was kind and tailored to each person. People and families were involved in care decisions, privacy and dignity were respected, and there were systems for complaints and quality checks. The previous inspection in November 2014 had also rated the service Good.
Safe care and staffing
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, and recruitment checks were completed before staff started work. Risk assessments were detailed and regularly reviewed.
“There were sufficient staff numbers to meet people's needs and staff were employed after suitable checks had been made.” from the report
Kind, respectful support
Staff knew people well and developed caring relationships. Inspectors saw that people were treated respectfully and their privacy and dignity were protected.
“The staff and manager developed positive, caring relationships with people using the service through talking and listening to people in a way that people understood.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's preferences, interests, history and aspirations. People and their families were involved in discussions about support.
“These included their personal history, individual preferences, interests and aspirations, and aimed to make sure they had as much choice and control as possible.” from the report
Good oversight
The home had regular checks on safety and quality, and staff felt able to raise concerns. Families' views had led to more involvement in staff recruitment.
“There were systems in place to carry out quality and safety audits and checks and we saw that these were carried out regularly.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How many staff are on duty during the day, evening and waking night, and how is cover arranged if someone is absent?
- 02How often will my relative's risk assessments and care plan be reviewed, and how will I be told about changes?
- 03How will my relative and our family be involved in decisions about care and support?
- 04What activities and community links could my relative take part in?
- 05How can families share feedback or make a complaint, and how will the service show what it has learned?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality of the service, covering all five CQC questions; all five ratings were given as Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 June 2017 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 Heathercroft
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 November 2012.
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 Croydon
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 £1,230 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.