Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a nursing home

What the CQC found at Heliosa Nursing Home

Goodpublished 11 June 2021, 5 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
Risks were identified and managed safely. Inspectors also found safe medicines systems, suitable staffing, safeguarding arrangements and good infection prevention measures.
Effective?
Good
This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
Caring?
Good
This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
Responsive?
Good
This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
Quality checks and learning systems had improved, but there was no registered manager and inspectors said management and leadership remained inconsistent.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, June 2021

Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but leadership remained inconsistent and Requires Improvement.

This was a focused inspection after concerns about how people's money was managed. The inspection activity took place over several dates. Inspectors spoke with people, a relative, staff and health professionals. They checked medicines, financial records, care records, recruitment files and other documents.

Inspectors rated the home Good for Safe. They found that risks were identified and managed, medicines were handled safely, infection controls were followed and there were enough suitably trained staff. People said they felt safe and well cared for.

The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. There was no registered manager, although the temporary management team understood its responsibilities and quality checks had improved. The overall rating was Good because ratings from earlier comprehensive inspections were used for areas that were not checked during this focused inspection.

What inspectors praised
  • Managing risks

    Inspectors found that risks to people's health and safety, including risks linked to COVID-19, were identified and managed.

    “Risks to people's health and safety including those presented by COVID-19 pandemic were identified and well managed so people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.” from the report
  • Staffing

    There were enough suitably skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs safely and consistently. Recruitment checks had also been completed before new staff started.

    “There were enough suitably, skilled and experienced staff on duty to meet people's needs safely and consistently.” from the report
  • Infection control

    The home had updated infection control procedures, increased cleaning and supplies of protective equipment. Inspectors found the home clean, hygienic and free from bad smells.

    “All areas of the home were seen to be clean, hygienic and odour free.” from the report
  • Improvement since the last inspection

    The two previous breaches had been addressed. The provider was no longer in breach of the regulations covering safe care and treatment and good governance.

    “At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • No registered manager

    needs fixing

    The registered manager's post was vacant during the inspection. A temporary manager and other managers were running the home, but the Well-led rating remained Requires Improvement.

    “There was no registered manager at the time of the inspection.” from the report
  • Leadership was inconsistent

    needs fixing

    Although governance systems had improved, inspectors still found that management and leadership were not fully consistent.

    “At this inspection this key question has remained the same. This meant the service management and leadership was inconsistent.” from the report
  • Call bell response

    minor

    One person reported occasions when staff had not responded promptly to their call bell. The home introduced monitoring to check response times.

    “One person told us that there had been occasions when staff had not responded promptly when they had used their call bell.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Who is currently responsible for managing the home while the registered manager's post is vacant?
  2. 02What steps are being taken to make sure leadership remains consistent?
  3. 03How are call bell response times monitored, and what have the results shown since monitoring began?
  4. 04How are quality checks and audits used to make sure improvements are maintained?
  5. 05Which ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection still apply to Effective, Caring and Responsive?

This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 June 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, November 2019

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective care, but safety risks and management records were not always handled well.

This was an unannounced inspection on 22 August and 5 September 2019. Two inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting health professional. They observed care and reviewed care, medicines, staff and management records.

The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People said they felt safe and were treated with kindness and respect. There were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, people received healthcare support, and activities and family visits were supported.

Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Some pressure mattress pumps were set wrongly, and a sensor mat for a person at high risk of falls was not in place. Care plans and records were not always updated or accurate, and the home's checks had not found these problems. The provider took immediate action, but the home remained in breach of two regulations.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and respectful care

    People and relatives spoke positively about the staff and care. Inspectors observed staff being caring, kind and respectful.

    “We could see from our observations that staff were caring and kind when providing support.” from the report
  • Enough trained staff

    Inspectors found enough suitably qualified and trained staff. New staff completed induction and shadowed experienced workers before working alone.

    “There was enough suitably qualified and trained staff on duty to meet people's needs and to ensure their safety and wellbeing.” from the report
  • Medicines managed safely

    Medicines were received, stored, given and disposed of safely. The report says improvement had been made since the previous inspection.

    “Medicines were received, stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
  • Good support for choice and consent

    People were involved in daily decisions, and staff understood mental capacity and best-interest processes.

    “People were supported to be involved in daily decisions about their care and staff sought their consent.” from the report
  • Activities and family contact

    The home offered group and individual activities and supported people to maintain important relationships. Relatives were welcomed.

    “There was a range of activities on offer on a group or individual basis and people's hobbies and interests were supported.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Pressure injury risks

    serious

    Some pressure mattress pumps were set at the wrong pressure for people's weight. This increased the risk of pressure ulcers.

    “We found that a number of the pressure relieving mattress pumps were set on the incorrect pressure for the person's weight.” from the report
  • Falls prevention equipment

    serious

    A sensor mat for a person assessed as being at high risk of falls was not in place when the person was in bed.

    “This meant the person was at increased risk of falls.” from the report
  • Care plans and records

    serious

    Some care plans were not updated when people's needs changed. Records also failed to show some care that staff said had been provided.

    “Systems were either not in place or robust enough to demonstrate safety was effectively managed and contemporaneous records of each person care were not always maintained in the appropriate detail.” from the report
  • Quality checks

    needs fixing

    The home's audit system did not check whether pressure mattress pumps were set correctly, so safety problems were missed.

    “The provider audit processes did not include a system to ensure pressure relieving mattress pumps were on the correct setting therefore safety issues had been left unnoticed.” from the report
  • Food was not consistent

    minor

    Some people said the food was good, while others found it repetitive. The home was consulting people and carrying out meal satisfaction checks.

    “Some people told us that the food was good where others said the food was repetitive.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How do you now check that every pressure mattress pump is set correctly for the person's weight?
  2. 02How do you make sure sensor mats and other falls prevention equipment are in place whenever they are needed?
  3. 03How often are care plans and risk assessments reviewed when a person's needs change?
  4. 04How do you check that daily care, including pressure relief and continence care, is recorded accurately?
  5. 05What progress has been made since this inspection to address the two regulatory breaches?

This was an unannounced planned inspection that assessed all five CQC questions and looked at both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 November 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Heliosa Nursing Home

5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. June 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Heliosa Nursing Home →

  2. November 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Heliosa Nursing Home →

  3. August 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. March 2017Requires improvementdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. February 2016Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. February 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. August 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. March 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. November 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Cheshire East

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. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.

“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
Katrina R., about Camille F.
“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.”
John P., about Rodrigo Javier B.
See live-in carers near Cheshire EastProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.