CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Heyfields Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People's risks were assessed and managed, and inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicine management had significantly improved, records and storage were checked, and infection control arrangements were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described staff as kind and said their privacy and dignity were respected. Inspectors observed positive interactions and found that people were involved in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager was described as visible and approachable. Regular audits, external checks, staff meetings and feedback from people and relatives were used to monitor and improve the service.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and clear improvements since the previous inspection, but this visit did not assess every area.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 27 June 2022. Inspectors spoke with eight people, one relative and eight staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Caring and Well-led were each rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe care planning, improved medicine management, kind interactions and systems for checking quality.
The previous inspection, published in September 2019, rated the service Requires Improvement and found breaches of regulation. This inspection found that improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. People generally received support in a timely way.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Improved medicines
Medicine systems had improved significantly since the previous inspection. Medicines were stored and disposed of safely, with checks on stock and as-needed medicine guidance.
“The systems used to ensure people received their medicine in a safe way had significantly improved since the last inspection.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People spoke very positively about the care. Inspectors saw staff taking time to talk with people and found that privacy, dignity and independence were supported.
“People were unanimous in their opinions about the quality of the care at the home.” from the report
Improved oversight
The home had regular management audits and additional checks by an external auditor. Feedback from people, relatives and staff was considered and acted on.
“Audits were completed regularly by the registered manager.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What checks are now used to make sure medicine records remain complete and medicines continue to be given safely?
- 02What were the previous ratings for Effective and Responsive, and what has changed in those areas since the last inspection?
- 03How are people's individual risks and changing health needs reviewed and communicated to staff?
- 04How often are relatives and residents asked for feedback, and what recent changes have been made as a result?
- 05How do you check that there are enough suitably trained staff for each person's needs on every shift?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Caring and Well-led; Effective and Responsive were not inspected, so their previous ratings were used in the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 July 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, September 2019
Requires Improvement overall; inspectors found kind care, but concerns about medicines, privacy and management checks.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 August 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, staff records and management checks.
The home was rated Good for Effective and Responsive. People had individual care plans, suitable training and access to healthcare. They were supported with food, communication, activities, family contact and end-of-life choices.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe, Caring and Well-led. Inspectors found risks linked to medicine storage, unsafe parts of the building and private information being displayed. They also found that management checks had not identified these problems.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about the staff team. Staff supported people with dignity, independence and involvement in decisions.
“People told us they were treated with care by a helpful, kind and considerate staff team.” from the report
Good care planning
People's physical, mental health and social needs were assessed and reviewed. Care plans included advice from healthcare professionals and people's preferences.
“People's needs were assessed and regularly reviewed.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People had choices about meals and received help at their own pace. Healthcare professionals were contacted promptly when needed.
“People had access to additional healthcare professionals including GP's, physiotherapists, speech and language therapists.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People took part in activities they enjoyed and were supported to stay in contact with family, friends and faith groups.
“Throughout this inspection we saw people were involved in activities they enjoyed and found interesting and stimulating.” from the report
Medicine storage
seriousMedicine room temperature readings had exceeded the home's limit for six continuous days without management action. The medicine fridge was also unlocked until inspectors raised the issue.
“People were at risk of receiving unsafe support with their prescribed medicines.” from the report
Building safety
seriousUnprotected hot water pipes, charging cables near the pipes and an unsecured heavy fire door created risks of injury. The provider acted on the charging cable during the inspection.
“People were not always safe as the provider's risk management processes were ineffective.” from the report
Confidential information
needs fixingPersonal information, including resuscitation decisions and end-of-life information, was visible from communal areas. It was covered by the end of the inspection.
“People did not always have their personal and private information kept confidential by those supporting them.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousQuality monitoring did not identify the problems found by inspectors. This led to a breach of the regulation on good governance.
“The management team had ineffective systems to monitor the quality of the service they provided.” from the report
- 01How do you now check medicine room temperatures, and what happens if readings go above the safe limit?
- 02How have you checked that medicine fridges and other medicine storage areas are locked?
- 03What action was taken to protect people from the hot water pipes and secure the heavy fire door?
- 04How do you prevent confidential information about people's health and treatment from being visible to others?
- 05What changes were made after the breach of Regulation 17, and how are managers checking that those changes are working?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection that looked at the overall quality of the home, including accommodation and nursing or personal care; all five rating areas were inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 September 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 Heyfields Nursing Home
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 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.
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 Staffordshire
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 £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.