CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Heathside Residential Home
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention measures, including visitor screening, PPE, testing, social distancing and outbreak management. They noted that a specific checklist for high-touch surfaces was not in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not assess this question.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- This targeted inspection did not assess this question.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- This targeted inspection did not assess this question.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not assess this question.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection control arrangements, with one cleaning checklist still needed.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 29 January 2021. It looked at how the home was preventing and controlling infections during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that visitors were checked and risk assessed, PPE was available, staff had infection control training, and people and staff received regular COVID-19 tests. The home also had an external visiting lodge and increased cleaning.
The overall service was inspected but not rated. The Safe question was also inspected but not rated. Inspectors found that a specific checklist for high-touch surfaces was not in place and gave the home guidance to develop its approach.
Safe visiting
The home had a separate external visiting lodge, with separate entry points and cleaning after each visit.
“The provider had implemented a separate external visitation lodge to facilitate safe visits for people and their relatives.” from the report
PPE and staff training
PPE was available throughout the building and staff had received training in infection prevention and control and PPE.
“All staff had received training in IPC and PPE in relation to COVID-19” from the report
Testing and monitoring
People and staff received regular COVID-19 tests, and the home carried out infection control audits.
“People and staff received regular COVID-19 tests.” from the report
Visitor protection
Visitors had their temperatures checked and were risk assessed before entering the home.
“All visitors had their temperatures checked and were risk assessed before entering.” from the report
High-touch cleaning records
needs fixingCleaning had increased, but the home did not have a specific checklist for high-touch surfaces. Inspectors also provided guidance about suitable cleaning and disinfection.
“Cleaning regimes had increased and some checklists were used, however a specific checklist for high touch surfaces was not in place.” from the report
- 01Has the specific checklist for high-touch surfaces now been introduced?
- 02How often are high-touch surfaces cleaned and how is this checked?
- 03What guidance about suitable cleaning and disinfection did the home receive, and what changes were made?
- 04How are visitors risk assessed and how are visits managed through the external visiting lodge?
- 05How often are people and staff tested for COVID-19?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe; the other key questions and the overall service were not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 2021 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, October 2019
Rated Outstanding; inspectors found exceptionally caring and responsive support, with one dietary-record shortfall addressed during the inspection.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 10 and 12 July 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They also reviewed care files, staff records, medicine records and records about how the home was managed.
The home was rated Outstanding overall. Caring and Responsive were Outstanding. Safe, Effective and Well-led were Good. Inspectors found kind staff, personalised care, good support for independence, safe medicines and a wide range of activities.
There was one shortfall. Some care-file information about changing dietary needs had not been updated promptly. The home dealt with this on the first day of the inspection. The overall rating improved from Good at the previous inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind, compassionate and respectful. Inspectors saw strong relationships between staff and people.
“There was an extremely strong and visible person-centred culture at the home.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff supported people to follow interests and achieve personal goals, including outings, hobbies and reconnecting with important parts of their lives.
“Staff took time to get to know people, their likes, dislikes and interests and ensured care was delivered accordingly.” from the report
Promoting independence
People were encouraged to make choices and do what they could for themselves. The reablement service helped people practise skills before returning home.
“HAPS was all about improving people's independence and re-learning skills.” from the report
Good activities and social contact
Activities were planned throughout the day and included individual and group outings, visits from local schools, music and animal activities.
“Activities and events were an integral part of people's care and support and were planned morning, afternoon and evening.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicine records were accurate and staff had their medicine skills checked. Inspectors also found enough staff to meet people's needs.
“Medicines administration records (MAR) had been completed accurately and consistently.” from the report
Dietary records were not always updated promptly
needs fixingSome care files did not reflect people's changing dietary needs in a timely way. The home addressed this during the first day of the inspection.
“However, we found some instances where information in care files had not been updated in a timely way to reflect people's changing dietary needs.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure a person's changing dietary needs are updated promptly in their care file?
- 02Which activities and community outings would be suitable for my relative's interests and abilities?
- 03How would you support my relative to maintain or regain their independence?
- 04How would you keep me involved in care planning and reviews?
- 05How do you use assistive technology safely and decide whether it is suitable for each person?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the home and the care provided were both looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 October 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 Heathside Residential Home
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Outstanding.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2019Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Wigan
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. 92 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.