CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Heatherside Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found people were safe and the home was well managed, with some improvements still needed in staff records and supervision.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 18 and 22 March 2022. One inspector and one Expert by Experience visited, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall, with Good ratings for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicine systems, appropriate infection control and effective checks on risks such as falls, fire and legionella.
The service had previously been rated Requires Improvement, with a breach of Regulation 17. Inspectors found that improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach.
This inspection only assessed Safe and Well-led. The ratings for the other areas were carried forward from the previous inspection, rather than assessed again during this visit.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely. Recruitment checks and staff training were also in place.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to support people safely and in line with their needs.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. Staff had training and their competence was checked.
“Medicines records were complete and up to date.” from the report
Risk management
The home checked risks including fire, falls, infection and legionella. Actions identified by checks were followed up.
“All actions from the 2021 risk assessment had been completed with evidence available to support this.” from the report
Supportive culture
People, relatives and staff gave positive feedback about the management. Staff said they felt supported.
“Staff felt supported to deliver high quality care that led to good outcomes for people.” from the report
Agency worker checks
needs fixingThe provider did not know that agency staff needed the same recruitment assurances as directly employed staff. The manager said this would be addressed.
“Although the provider was not using many agency staff, they were unaware of the requirement to gain the same recruitment assurances for agency staff.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingSupervisions were not always happening regularly for all staff. The manager began arranging them after inspectors raised this.
“Although staff felt supported, staff supervisions were not always happening regularly for all staff.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that agency workers have the same recruitment assurances as directly employed staff?
- 02How often will my relative's care plan be reviewed?
- 03How do you make sure all staff receive regular supervision?
- 04How do you review falls and change staffing or care arrangements when risks are identified?
- 05What infection control arrangements are currently used for visits and possible outbreaks?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 May 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, December 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care but serious weaknesses in safety checks and management oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection on 14 and 17 October 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were treated with dignity, their care was personalised, healthcare was arranged when needed, and activities and complaints handling had improved.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. Fire safety, legionella checks, medicine records and some recruitment records were not properly managed. The provider took prompt action during and after the inspection, but the provider had breached Regulation 17 for poor governance.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as caring. Inspectors saw staff supporting people patiently and respectfully.
“We observed caring and compassionate interactions between the registered manager, staff and people throughout the inspection.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records included people's histories, preferences, needs and risks. They were reviewed regularly.
“People had comprehensive and person-centred care records.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The range of activities had improved since the previous inspection. People could take part in baking, gardening, games, poetry and other social events.
“The service had a range of activities available for people to enjoy in the home for example baking, gardening and games.” from the report
Prompt response to concerns
The provider and manager acted during and after the inspection to improve fire safety, water-system checks and other records.
“However, the provider and registered manager took prompt action in response to our concerns.” from the report
Fire and water safety
seriousRequired improvements from the fire risk assessment had mostly not been completed, and water-system checks did not give assurance that legionella risks were being managed. Inspectors said this placed people at risk.
“The insufficient management of legionella risk had placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingCreams were not always recorded clearly, and there was not always evidence that pharmacist advice had been sought before medicines were crushed.
“Administration of prescribed creams was not always clearly documented, and some creams were being administered on an 'as required' basis when they were prescribed to be given regularly.” from the report
Recruitment checks
needs fixingSome staff files were incomplete. This meant it was unclear whether all checks had been completed before staff started work.
“It was therefore unclear if appropriate checks had been carried out to ensure staff were suitable prior to starting their employment.” from the report
Weak management audits
seriousThe provider's audits had failed to identify or complete actions on several safety and record-keeping problems. This was the reason for the Regulation 17 breach.
“The provider had failed to assess, monitor and mitigate the risks relating to the safety of the service, service users and others.” from the report
- 01What has been completed since the inspection to address the fire risk assessment actions, and how are fire evacuation drills now checked?
- 02How are water outlets, temperatures and other legionella controls recorded and reviewed?
- 03How are prescribed creams and crushed medicines now recorded, including where creams should be applied and when pharmacist advice is needed?
- 04How do you check staff recruitment records are complete before employment starts?
- 05How often are safety and quality audits reviewed, and how do you make sure identified actions are completed?
This was an unannounced full inspection covering the premises and care, with ratings given for all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 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.
Every inspection of Heatherside Care Home
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- November 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- January 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 November 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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.