CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Heffle Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Heffle Court was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but leadership and records needed improvement.
This was a focused inspection on 5 and 7 July 2022. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led, including infection control. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals, observed care and checked care, medicine, safety and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe. People told inspectors they felt safe. Medicines, staffing checks, risk assessments and infection control were generally managed safely. Staff knew people well and supported their choices and independence.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that bruising was not always recorded, followed up or shared with staff clearly. Care plans also did not always contain enough detail about people's clinical needs. Immediate action was taken during and after the inspection.
The overall rating stayed Good because the other three question ratings were carried forward from the last comprehensive inspection. The last overall rating was also Good, published on 18 April 2019.
Staff knew people well
Staff understood people's preferences, risks and support needs. They helped people make choices and maintain their independence.
“Risks to people were assessed and mitigated because staff knew them well.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff respond kindly, offer reassurance and encourage people to take part in activities safely.
“We saw staff respond to people with kindness, offering support where needed whilst empowering people to make choices and maintain their independence.” from the report
Communication with families
Relatives said they felt involved and were kept informed about changes. The home encouraged feedback through meetings and reviews.
“Relatives told us they felt involved in their relatives' care and staff kept them up to date with any changes.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had systems for preventing and managing infections and supported safe visiting.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Bruising was not always recorded properly
needs fixingInspectors found visible bruising that had not been robustly recorded, followed up or shared with staff at handover. The home took immediate action and introduced extra checks.
“This meant that unexplained bruising was not being recorded promptly by staff.” from the report
Care plans were inconsistent
needs fixingSome care plans did not explain people's clinical needs in enough detail, including diabetes and dementia care. Management checks had not identified these gaps.
“This inconsistency had not been identified during care plan reviews or audits and needed to be improved to ensure a consistent level of care planning and documentation across the home.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to record, photograph, body-map and follow up bruising or wounds?
- 02How is information about injuries now shared with all relevant staff during handover?
- 03How do you check that care plans contain the right clinical information for each person, including diabetes and dementia needs?
- 04What audits are now used to confirm that these improvements are working?
- 05What were the ratings for Caring, Effective and Responsive at the previous comprehensive inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, with infection control included under Safe; Caring, Effective and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 August 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, October 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 13 October 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control measures during the coronavirus pandemic, not the full range of care provided.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using personal protective equipment safely, supporting testing, following social distancing and shielding rules, and managing visitors and admissions safely. They were also assured that the home had suitable hygiene practices and an up-to-date infection control policy.
The home had clear visiting arrangements, technology to help people keep in touch with relatives, and a separate area planned for isolating people if an outbreak occurred. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a Good, Requires Improvement or Inadequate rating.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had measures to prevent and manage infections, including safe PPE use, testing and hygiene practices.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home had clear visitor policies and designated indoor and garden visiting areas that were disinfected after each use.
“There were clear visitor policies for relatives. There was the facility for garden and indoor visits to take place in designated areas of the home.” from the report
Keeping people connected
Technology was available to help people enjoy activities and stay in touch with relatives during the pandemic.
“The provider had purchased several Chromecasts and iPads for the service to use.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home had identified a separate area for isolation if an outbreak occurred, with plans for a designated staff team.
“The registered manager had identified an area of the home to be used to isolate people, should an outbreak occur.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your visiting arrangements changed since this inspection, and what happens if the home has a COVID-19 outbreak?
- 02Is the separate isolation area still available, and would it still have its own designated staff team?
- 03How are people and staff tested now, and how are the results used to protect residents?
- 04What arrangements are currently in place for PPE, social distancing and cleaning?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not assess the other four CQC questions or give an overall quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 October 2020 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 Heffle Court
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 July 2013.
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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.