CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Heron Hill Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with some concerns about meals and occasional waits for staff.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 24 February 2023 and returned on 1 March 2023 to check medicines and management records. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, observed care, looked around the home and checked care, medicine, recruitment and other records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were also rated Good. Inspectors found enough suitably skilled staff, safe medicines systems, good risk management, personalised care, activities and effective links with health services.
People's views were mostly positive, but some people reported waiting for staff to return after asking for help. There were also mixed views about the food, particularly on one unit. The manager acted during the inspection by reminding staff to offer alternatives and introducing picture menus.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in April 2019. Inspectors said improvements had been made in medicines management, capacity assessments, activities and record keeping. Caring was not assessed during this focused inspection.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines, including controlled drugs, were handled safely. Staff had training and competency checks, and managers carried out regular audits.
“Medicines, including controlled drugs, were received, stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, preferences and life histories. Staff knew people well and reviewed plans regularly.
“Each person had a detailed care plan to guide staff on how to support them.” from the report
Activities
People could take part in group activities and receive individual support to reduce isolation, including activities for people cared for in their rooms.
“These included hand massage, nail painting and staff spending time chatting or reading the paper with people.” from the report
Improved management
The manager and provider had acted on the previous inspection and responded to feedback during this inspection. People and relatives said the home was well managed.
“The registered manager and provider had taken action following our last inspection to improve the service.” from the report
Meal choice and quality
needs fixingSome people, especially on the Nightingale unit, said they disliked the meals, found them cold or felt there was not enough variety. The manager acted during the inspection by reminding staff to offer alternatives and creating picture menus.
“One person told us, "The food is horrible and it's always cold … it's just mush on a plate.” from the report
Waiting for staff
needs fixingSome people said they sometimes had to wait for help. They said staff responded to the call system but did not always return when promised.
“They said, although staff responded when they used the call system to request assistance, they sometimes said they would 'be back in a minute' but did not return to support them.” from the report
One care plan update
minorInspectors found one care plan had not been updated after a medicine change. Nurses corrected this during the inspection.
“We saw one example where a person's care plan had not been updated to reflect a change to one of their medicines.” from the report
- 01How do you monitor and reduce waits when people use the call system?
- 02What meal alternatives are available if my relative dislikes the planned meal?
- 03How do you make sure meal choices and menus are suitable for people with dementia or a plain diet?
- 04How are medicine changes checked and recorded in each person's care plan?
- 05How will you continue to monitor the improvements made since the previous Requires Improvement rating?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led; Caring was not inspected, and the overall rating used the ratings from this inspection together with the previous inspection where needed. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 March 2023 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, April 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and respectful care, but concerns about medicines, staffing, records, activities and management oversight.
This was a planned comprehensive inspection, carried out over visits on 22 and 28 January 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, visitors and staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, incidents and quality checks, and observed care.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were also rated Requires Improvement. Caring was rated Good. Inspectors found people were generally treated kindly and with dignity, but some important systems were not reliable enough.
Concerns included medicines procedures and records, unexplained bruising that had not been reported, periods when staff were not accessible, overdue training, incomplete care records and too few activities for some people. The home took some immediate action during the inspection, including extra checks and reviews.
The home had no registered manager at the time. An interim manager was in place, and a permanent manager had been recruited and was due to start the following month. The previous inspection, published on 6 February 2018, also rated the home Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff supporting privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Food and mealtimes
People reported having plenty of choice and enough to eat and drink. Inspectors saw relaxed mealtimes and nutritional risks were assessed.
“People said the food was very good. They said there was plenty of choice and "more than enough" to eat” from the report
Health support
The home worked with doctors, specialist nurses and other health professionals. People's treatment wishes at the end of life were recorded.
“We saw from people's records that there was effective working with other health care professionals and support agencies.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment
The home had continued work to make the environment easier for people living with memory problems to understand and use.
“We saw the home had continued to develop a dementia-friendly environment to help maximise people's wellbeing and memory skills.” from the report
Medicines checks were not reliable
seriousInspectors found problems with administration records, controlled drugs and fridge temperature checks on some units. Some issues had not been found through the home's own audits.
“We found the management of medicines was not consistently good on all the units.” from the report
Unexplained bruising was not reported
seriousTwo people had unexplained bruises that staff had not reported to management or the appropriate authorities. The concern was raised with the local safeguarding team during the inspection.
“However, during the first day of the inspection we found two people with some unexplained bruises that had not been reported by staff to the management or to the appropriate authorities.” from the report
Heavy use of agency staff
seriousThe home had enough staff on the rotas, but agency staff made up a high proportion of shifts. On one unit, staff were sometimes not present and accessible in the dining area as required by risk assessments.
“On Cavell unit, there were periods of time when staff were not present and accessible to people in the dining area.” from the report
Activities were limited
needs fixingThe activity coordinator and occupational therapist had left. Some people, including those nursed in bed or with limited communication, were at increased risk of social isolation.
“We found some people who were being nursed in bed or had limited communication were at increased risk of becoming socially isolated due to the current lack of person-centred activities provision.” from the report
Care records were incomplete
needs fixingSome care plans did not contain consistent or up-to-date information about people's needs and preferences. Some records were not dated, so it was unclear whether they were current.
“Not all the care plans we saw had been fully completed to reflect the individual's life story and personal preferences.” from the report
Management oversight was inconsistent
needs fixingThe home had no registered manager and the interim arrangement was not effective enough. Quality systems did not always identify problems quickly or maintain improvements.
“We found that management oversight on the three units had been inconsistent.” from the report
- 01Who is the registered manager now, and how often are they visible on each unit?
- 02What checks are now in place to make sure medicines are given at the right time and recorded correctly on every unit?
- 03How do you make sure staff are present when people need monitoring, particularly in communal and dining areas?
- 04What activities are available for people who are nursed in bed or have limited communication?
- 05How are care plans checked and updated when a person's needs, condition or behaviour changes?
This was a planned comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and both the premises and care provided; it followed the previous Requires Improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 April 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 Heron Hill Care Home
9 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvement
- September 2015Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvement
- February 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 August 2012.
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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Westmorland and Furness
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 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.