CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Highfield House Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Highfield House Residential Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found mostly good infection control, but PPE was not always removed safely.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 21 June 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than giving a full rating to the home.
Inspectors were assured about visitors, social distancing, testing, admissions, cleaning, outbreak planning and the infection control policy. Staff had received infection control training and the home was clean and tidy.
Inspectors were only somewhat assured about PPE use. Staff wore PPE for personal care but sometimes walked through the home before disposing of it. The manager said this would be reviewed.
Staff infection control training
All staff had received infection control training, including how to use PPE safely.
“All staff had received IPC training, including how to safely put on and take off PPE such as gloves, aprons, and face coverings.” from the report
Cleaning arrangements
Inspectors found the home clean and noted a schedule for disinfecting frequently touched surfaces.
“There was a cleaning schedule that included disinfecting touch points.” from the report
Visits and admissions
The home had a clear visitors policy and arrangements for testing and isolating new residents.
“The provider's visitor's policy was clear and in line with national guidance.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home had a contingency plan and arrangements to isolate people in their rooms if an outbreak occurred.
“There was a contingency plan in place that described key people to be contacted in the event of a pandemic.” from the report
PPE removal and disposal
needs fixingStaff removed PPE after leaving people's rooms and walked through the home to dispose of it. Inspectors said this increased the risk of cross-contamination, and the manager agreed to review the process.
“Staff wore appropriate PPE when delivering personal care, but they left the persons room before removing it.” from the report
- 01Do staff now remove used PPE inside people's rooms before leaving?
- 02Where are PPE stations and clinical waste bins placed?
- 03How do you check that staff are using and disposing of PPE safely?
- 04Are the testing, visiting and isolation arrangements from this report still in place?
- 05When was the home's full inspection and rating last updated?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it did not assess the other four key questions or provide a full service rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 July 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.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but medicines processes and privacy controls needed improvement.
This was a planned inspection over 4 and 5 November 2019. It was unannounced on the first day and announced on the second. The inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff, volunteers and healthcare professionals, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough skilled staff, clean surroundings, personalised care, good activities and positive relationships with families and healthcare professionals.
There were some shortfalls. Medicines were not always recorded or stored in line with best practice. Personal information could be seen in the staff room, and quality checks had not found some of these issues. The previous overall rating was Outstanding, so this was a drop in rating, including Caring and Well-led.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated as individuals and staff supported their dignity, choices and independence. Feedback from relatives and healthcare professionals was positive.
“People were supported by staff that were caring and treated them with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and histories. Staff supported hobbies, family relationships and communication needs.
“People's care plans were consistent and had a person-centred approach to care planning.” from the report
Food and mealtimes
People had a choice of home-cooked food and could eat at times and places that suited them. Inspectors saw staff encouraging people to drink and making mealtimes social.
“Menus reflected an excellent choice of healthy home cooked meals.” from the report
Partnership working
Staff worked with a range of healthcare professionals and made referrals when people needed specialist support.
“Staff worked in partnership with GPs, district nursing services, speech and language therapy, the local community hospital and adult social care services.” from the report
Medicines records and storage
needs fixingSome medicines administration records were not signed, so it was unclear whether medicines had been given. Storage areas were not temperature-monitored, one room was above 25 degrees and one cupboard was prone to damp.
“Staff did not always sign medicines administration records (MARs) to evidence medicines had been given which meant it was unclear if people had received their medicines or not.” from the report
Medicines practice
needs fixingStaff did not always follow the medicines policy. Inspectors also found that staff were not aware of the risks of paraffin-based creams and sometimes prepared medicines before checking that people were ready to take them.
“We recommend the provider consider current guidance on administering people's medicines and take action to update their practice accordingly.” from the report
Privacy of records
needs fixingRecords containing personal information were accessible in the staff room. People could also see computer screens when walking past if staff were using them.
“Unfortunately, records were left out and accessible with peoples personal information available.” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingThe provider's governance checks were mostly effective but had not identified some minor shortfalls, including the medicines problems.
“However, we did find the medicine management quality assurance process was not fully effective and the provider had failed to identify the shortfalls through provider oversight checks.” from the report
Out-of-date safety certificate
minorThe gas safety certificate was two months out of date when inspectors visited. The manager arranged for this to be renewed as soon as possible.
“Although we did note the gas safety certificate was two months out of date.” from the report
- 01How have you changed the way medicines are stored, including temperature checks and the damp cupboard?
- 02How do you now make sure every medicines administration record is signed correctly?
- 03What training and checks show that staff understand the risks of paraffin-based creams and follow the medicines policy?
- 04How are residents' paper records and computer screens kept private from other people in the home?
- 05What has the external contractor changed in the quality assurance system since this inspection?
This was a planned inspection of the whole care home and all five key questions; the previous overall rating was Outstanding and Caring and Well-led had each fallen to Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 December 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 Highfield House Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Highfield House Residential Care Home →
- December 2019Gooddown from OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Highfield House Residential Care Home →
- May 2017Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- December 2014GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 September 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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.