CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Little Heath Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and individual risks were assessed. Medicines were administered safely by trained staff, although the report noted one previous missed-medicines error.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans covered people's health and support needs and were reviewed. Staff had relevant training, although formal supervision had not always taken place within the required timescales.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and were observed to be kind, friendly and respectful. People's communication methods, dignity, privacy and choices were supported.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Support was highly personalised and responded quickly to people's changing needs. Communication tools, activities and careful preparation helped people take part in new and meaningful experiences.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager and systems for monitoring quality, safety and records. Feedback was generally positive, although some relatives reported difficulty contacting management and staff meeting minutes lacked detail.
What inspectors found, March 2018
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding responsiveness; inspectors found kind, safe care and some smaller shortfalls to monitor.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 December 2017. One inspector reviewed care records, medicines records, staff and training records, safety checks and quality monitoring. They observed care, spoke with staff and received feedback from relatives and professionals.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines administration, suitable training, personalised care and respectful support. They also found that people's health needs were followed up and their rights and choices were respected.
The home was rated Outstanding for Responsive. Inspectors found highly individualised support, strong communication methods and activities that improved people's confidence, communication and quality of life. The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the October 2015 inspection.
Personalised support
Care plans were detailed and tailored to each person's needs, abilities, preferences and communication style. Staff used this information consistently in daily care.
“People's care remained totally person centred and care plans were detailed and personalised.” from the report
Communication support
The home used individual communication plans, accessible information and assistive technology. This helped staff understand people's feelings, choices and needs.
“Imaginative ways had been sought to assist people to communicate more effectively including the use of assistive technology.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People were offered activities suited to their abilities, interests and mood. Inspectors saw examples of activities improving confidence, communication and participation.
“People were supported by highly skilled and experienced care staff who assisted people to access rewarding and interesting activities which greatly enhanced their lifestyle.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and were observed treating them with kindness, respect and dignity. People appeared relaxed and confident around staff.
“People's wellbeing was protected and all interactions observed between staff and people staying at the service were caring, friendly and respectful.” from the report
Health support
The home worked with health professionals and followed up people's health needs. Care plans included health information and referrals were made when needed.
“As far as I'm aware, people's health needs have always been addressed in a timely manner.” from the report
Missed medicines error
seriousThe report recorded one missed-medicines error. The manager introduced medicine workshops and there had been no further reported errors before the inspection.
“We noted there had been a missed medicines error reported.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingFormal staff supervision had fallen short of the provider's required programme. The manager had scheduled dates to bring this back within the expected timescales.
“The registered manager acknowledged that this programme had fallen short of the providers requirements but dates were now scheduled to meet the timescales.” from the report
Community transport
needs fixingA complaint said a lack of qualified drivers had reduced some people's access to the community. The manager was recruiting and had introduced steps to reduce the impact.
“The second and more recent complaint had been concerned with the lack of qualified drivers which had impacted on the accessibility into the community for some people.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken since the missed-medicines error, and how are medicine checks now monitored?
- 02Are all staff now receiving formal supervision within the required timescales?
- 03How many qualified drivers are currently available, and can residents access planned community activities reliably?
- 04How do you make sure important information is passed on to every relevant staff member?
- 05What arrangements are in place to maintain consistent approaches between different staff members?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and reviewing care for all eight people living in the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 March 2018 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 Little Heath Court
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 July 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
42 live-in carers within about an hour of West Berkshire
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. 36 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“Titus has compassion, patience, a great sense of humour and a very professional attitude.”
“Barbara treated my mother-in-law with enormous love and compassion and provided an environment where she could feel safe and seen”
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.