CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Heather House Nursing Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, April 2018
SeeAbility - Heather House Nursing Home is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with some risks around storing thickening agents and bed-rail assessments.
This was an unannounced inspection on 26 February 2018. Two inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff, managers and healthcare professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, staff files, training records, meeting minutes and other records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, detailed care plans, good health support and kind, respectful care. People had access to activities, family visits and specialist equipment.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. Care plans were up to date and quality checks were stronger. The previous inspection had found a breach about care records, but inspectors said the required improvements had been made.
Safe medicines practice
Nurses managed and gave medicines safely. Inspectors saw a medicine round, including medicine given through a gastrostomy tube, and found no gaps in the records checked.
“We observed a registered nurse on part of a medicine round and their practice was seen to be safe” from the report
Specialist staff and health support
The home had nurses on duty day and night. Staff worked with GPs, speech and language therapists, physiotherapists, dieticians and other professionals.
“Staff were well trained and had the skills and knowledge needed to provide the specialist support at the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff communicate carefully, protect people's dignity and support personal choices. Relatives also spoke highly of the care and relationships.
“We observed social interactions that were based on mutual respect for each other.” from the report
Improved leadership and records
The management team had strengthened care planning and quality monitoring since the previous inspection. Regular audits and follow-up checks were being used to track improvements.
“At this inspection the service had made the required improvement so we have now rated this question as good.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People had a structured programme of activities and could use a resource centre with a hydrotherapy pool and sensory equipment. Families could visit freely and use accommodation on site.
“There was a structured activity programme which included therapy such as hydrotherapy, physiotherapy, music, arts and crafts” from the report
Thickening agents left unattended
seriousFour containers of thickening agents were seen unattended in a communal area at times. Inspectors said this created a risk if they were swallowed.
“We observed four of these containers were left unattended in a communal area at times.” from the report
Bed-rail risk assessments
seriousThe home used a generic bed-rail risk assessment alongside information in care plans. Inspectors said the generic assessment did not fully consider each person's individual needs, and the manager said the process would be reviewed.
“A generic risk assessment did not consider people's specific individual needs in relations to the bed rails they used.” from the report
Responsive rating reduced
minorThe Responsive rating changed from Outstanding at the previous inspection to Good at this inspection. The report does not identify a specific serious failure in this area.
“At our last inspection we rated this key question as outstanding. At this inspection we have rated the service as good.” from the report
Limited community links
minorInspectors recorded that links with the wider community were limited because of the home's location. The manager was trying to develop local links, including through volunteers.
“Community links were limited due to the location of the service” from the report
- 01How are thickening agents now stored so that people cannot access them without staff support?
- 02How are bed-rail risks assessed for each individual person, and when was the assessment last reviewed?
- 03What activities could my relative take part in, including hydrotherapy, and how often would these be offered?
- 04How would you support my relative's specific communication, swallowing, epilepsy or sensory needs?
- 05How will my relative be supported to maintain contact with family and friends and take part in community activities?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC areas, with checks of care, records, staffing, training and quality monitoring. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 April 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 Heather House Nursing Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 December 2010.
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.