CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Heatherdale Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Heatherdale Residential Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, visiting arrangements and staffing measures.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 1 March 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care.
The home was clean and tidy. Inspectors found enough personal protective equipment, and staff had received infection control training. They were assured that infection risks, admissions, visiting and outbreaks were being managed.
Relatives could visit safely, including in the home and in a garden pod. The home also encouraged relatives to become essential care givers. The provider said staff had supported each other and staffing had been maintained without agency staff.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all five areas of care, so the report does not give an overall quality rating.
Infection control
The home was clean and tidy, had enough personal protective equipment and had trained staff. Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed.
“The home was clean and tidy. There were ample supplies of PPE and staff had received training in infection control procedures to keep people safe.” from the report
Safe visiting
Relatives could visit safely in the home and in a newly built garden pod. The home also continued to support essential care giver arrangements.
“Relatives were able to visit their family safely, including within the home and also in a newly built garden pod.” from the report
Staffing support
The provider said staff had supported one another during the pandemic and staffing had been maintained without agency staff.
“The registered manager told us the staff team had supported each other throughout the pandemic to maintain staffing levels without the need for agency staff.” from the report
Infection arrangements
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements covering visitors, admissions, protective equipment, hygiene, outbreaks and its infection control policy.
“We were assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current visiting arrangements, and can relatives still become essential care givers?
- 02How many permanent staff are currently working in the home, and has the home needed agency staff since this inspection?
- 03What infection control training have staff completed recently?
- 04How would the home manage an infection outbreak or a new admission safely?
- 05Has there been a later full inspection giving ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not assess all five quality areas or provide a full rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 April 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, September 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some minor gaps in risk, medicine and legal records.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 6 and 8 August 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives spoke positively about the care, staff and management. Inspectors found people were treated with kindness, supported to make choices and helped to stay involved in activities and community life.
Inspectors found some minor issues. A few risk assessments were missing, medicine records needed improvement, some medicines had been found in communal areas, and some documents did not clearly show whether legal safeguards were in place. The manager said these issues would be addressed. The overall Good rating stayed the same as at the previous inspection published on 1 March 2017.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw many examples of staff treating people with kindness, respect and compassion. People were supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“We saw many examples of kind and caring interactions between people, visitors and staff.” from the report
Good involvement and activities
People and relatives were involved in decisions about care. The home offered activities, outings and community links to help people maintain relationships and avoid isolation.
“People were encouraged to take part in activities, events and outings of their choice.” from the report
Effective health support
People had access to healthcare services, and staff worked with GPs, nurses and other professionals. Inspectors were told staff noticed changes and acted quickly.
“Staff will immediately spot when things are not right and act quickly to get professional help.” from the report
Open management
The management team was visible and approachable. Staff said they could speak up about problems, and the home used audits and feedback to make improvements.
“We never try to hide anything, especially if we have made a mistake.” from the report
Missing risk assessments
needs fixingSome risk assessments were not in place, including assessments about behaviours that challenged the service. The manager said this would be addressed immediately.
“However, we did find some risk assessments were not in place, including for behaviours that challenged the service.” from the report
Medicine recording
needs fixingMedicines were administered safely, but records and written instructions for some medicines needed improvement. Medicines had also been found in communal areas.
“We identified some minor improvements were needed in relation to the recording of medicines.” from the report
Unclear legal safeguard records
needs fixingSome documents did not make clear whether a legal safeguard was in place. The manager said this would be corrected straight away.
“It was unclear in some documents whether a DoLS was in place or not.” from the report
Small recruitment record gaps
minorRecruitment procedures were robust, but inspectors found a couple of minor gaps in the records for future applications.
“We found a couple of minor gaps in recording which we highlighted to the registered manager for future applications.” from the report
- 01Have all missing risk assessments, including those about behaviours that challenge the service, now been completed?
- 02How do you check that 'as required' medicines are recorded correctly and that medicines are not left in communal areas?
- 03How do care records clearly show whether legal safeguards are in place and what conditions apply?
- 04What changes have been made to recruitment records since the inspection?
- 05How are staffing levels monitored after the recent changes to make sure people's needs continue to be met?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the ratings for all five areas remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 September 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.
Every inspection of Heatherdale Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Heatherdale Residential Home →
- September 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Heatherdale Residential Home →
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Northumberland
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 £950 to £1,190 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.