CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Heywood Sumner House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear risk assessments, enough staff, safe recruitment and trained staff handling medicines. Safeguarding concerns and incidents were reviewed, with lessons used to improve practice.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had needs assessments, staff training and access to health services. However, some mental capacity assessments and best-interest records were missing when inspectors visited.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw people being treated with dignity, offered choices and supported to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and updated when needs changed. People were supported with communication, relationships, interests, community activities and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found visible leadership, good teamwork and regular checks of safety and quality. However, care-file audits had not identified the missing mental capacity paperwork.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Heywood Sumner House was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but some mental capacity paperwork was missing.
This was an unannounced inspection on 16 December 2019. Two inspectors spoke with people, relatives, managers and support staff. They reviewed care, medicine and staff records, observed care, and checked the home and its quality systems.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were happy. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems, personalised care plans and support for people to build skills, make choices and take part in community activities.
Inspectors found that mental capacity assessments and best-interest paperwork were not always in place. The manager began addressing this during the inspection and said the work would be completed by the end of January 2020. The previous inspection rating was also Good, published on 25 May 2017.
Safe care and medicines
Risk assessments gave staff clear instructions about reducing harm. Medicines were stored, administered and audited safely by trained staff.
“The service had implemented safe systems and processes which meant people received their medicines in line with best practice.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received extensive training, induction and supervision. They understood people’s needs and supported them to overcome challenges.
“There was a clear induction programme for new staff to follow which included shadow shifts and practical competency checks in line with the Care Certificate.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff respecting privacy, dignity and people’s choices.
“We observed staff knocking on people's doors before entering and not sharing personal information about people inappropriately.” from the report
Building independence
The home supported people to learn life skills, make decisions and take part in activities suited to their interests.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people’s likes, dislikes, needs and goals. Staff responded quickly when people’s needs changed.
“Care plans were personalised and updated in response to people's changing needs.” from the report
Missing capacity records
needs fixingSome mental capacity assessments and best-interest paperwork were not in place for people who needed them. The manager started correcting this during the inspection and said it would be prioritised.
“However, mental capacity assessments were not always completed, and best interest paperwork were not in place for people who required them.” from the report
Audit did not identify the gap
needs fixingThe home’s care-file audits had not picked up the missing paperwork. The manager said the audit process would be reviewed.
“However, the care file audits did not identify the areas found in relation to MCA paperwork during the inspection.” from the report
Kitchen renovation planned
minorInspectors noted that the kitchen looked tired and needed replacement. The home said renovation was planned.
“We were told that the home was planning some renovation to the kitchen which appeared a little tired and in need of replacement.” from the report
- 01Have all required mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions now been completed?
- 02How are mental capacity records checked so that missing paperwork is identified promptly?
- 03What progress has been made with the planned kitchen renovation?
- 04How will you support my relative to develop independence and take part in activities they enjoy?
- 05How will my relative’s communication needs and preferred way of making choices be recorded and shared?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; inspectors reviewed four people's care and medicine records, two staff files and other quality records. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 January 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.
What inspectors found, May 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with staff appraisals not completed in the previous year.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 26 April 2017. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, staff, managers and care professionals. Records about care, medicines, staff recruitment and quality checks were also reviewed.
Inspectors rated the home Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. They found sufficient staff at the time of inspection, safe medicines systems, suitable training, kind care and support based on people's individual needs.
The home had experienced staffing problems and changes in management. Inspectors said staffing was now sufficient, and the new registered manager had brought clearer leadership and improved organisation. Staff had not received an annual appraisal during the previous year.
Personalised support
Support plans described people's preferences, history, health needs and choices. They were reviewed regularly so staff knew about changes.
“Support plans gave clear information for staff on how to meet the needs of people in a person centred and individualised way.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and reassured them when they were anxious or upset. They respected privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“Staff were kind, caring and thoughtful in their interactions with people and reassured them when they became anxious.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and checked medicines carefully. Records, storage, stock checks and arrangements for medicines given when needed were in place.
“People received their medicines safely by staff who were appropriately trained.” from the report
Activities and independence
People could choose from activities at home and in the community. Staff supported people to work towards personal goals and greater independence.
“People had access to a range of activities both within the home and in the community.” from the report
Improving leadership
Staff and care professionals said the new manager had made the home more organised and stable. Regular meetings and audits supported oversight.
“Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the quality of care and drive improvements.” from the report
Staff appraisals were overdue
needs fixingStaff had not received an annual appraisal during the previous year because of changes in management. Inspectors said this had not stopped staff development, but the home needed to address the gap.
“We noted that staff had not received an annual appraisal during the previous year.” from the report
Recent staffing difficulties
minorThe home had experienced vacancies and staffing problems before the inspection. These were being covered by regular agency staff, and inspectors found enough staff on the day.
“The registered manager told us there had been some staffing issues.” from the report
- 01How are staff annual appraisals and development needs being managed now?
- 02Have there been any further staffing vacancies or reliance on agency staff since the inspection?
- 03How are people's risk assessments and support plans reviewed when their needs or behaviour changes?
- 04How are people and their families involved in reviews and decisions about care?
- 05What activities and community opportunities are currently available for each person?
This was the first comprehensive ratings inspection for the home and covered all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 May 2017 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 Heywood Sumner House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 October 2016.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.