CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Heathers Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Risks such as falls, choking, malnutrition and skin problems were generally managed safely, but some records were inconsistent or lacked clear care plans. Medicines guidance, refrigerator temperature records and recruitment checks also needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health and nutritional needs were met, staff had relevant training, and the home worked with health professionals. The inspectors recommended improvements to make the environment more suitable for people living with dementia.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed being kind, patient, polite and respectful. People had positive relationships with staff, although inspectors did not always see people involved in creating and reviewing their care plans.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans covered people's personal, health, social and spiritual needs. People had access to activities, communication support and a complaints process, although some care plan information was contradictory.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives, staff and health professionals generally felt the home was well run. Governance systems were in place, but some audits had not identified gaps in care records, recruitment and medicines documentation.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good overall, but Safe was Requires Improvement because records, medicines information and recruitment checks were not always reliable.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 30 December 2019. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement because some risk records, medicines information, recruitment checks and safety monitoring needed to be more complete and reliable.
People were generally treated kindly and respectfully. Their health, nutrition and activities were supported, and the home was described as clean. The inspectors also found that some improvements were already being made, including changes to records, audits and recruitment checks.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives praised the staff. Inspectors saw staff being friendly, patient and respectful, including when people were upset or confused.
“Throughout the inspection we observed staff being polite, friendly and respectful to people and visitors.” from the report
Health and nutrition
People's dietary needs were recorded and supported. Staff monitored drinks, offered refreshments regularly and worked with health professionals to meet people's healthcare needs.
“People received support with their dietary requirements as needed.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives, staff and health professionals generally felt the home was well run. The manager welcomed feedback and responded promptly to issues raised during the inspection.
“The registered manager welcomed our feedback and demonstrated a commitment to developing the service.” from the report
Risk records were inconsistent
seriousSome records did not match each other or did not include a clear plan explaining what staff should do after a risk was identified. The manager said extra guidance and record reviews were being added.
“In some cases we found inconsistent information in care records relating to risk, and there was not always a plan of care in place when risk had been assessed, such as with falls and choking.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousSome staff files were missing information, including interview records. One file did not explain how an issue found by a background check had been considered when deciding whether the person was suitable.
“Where one DBS (Disclosure and Barring Service) check had highlighted an issue, there was no risk assessment or file note to say this had been discussed with the staff member or if anything else needed to be considered to ensure the staff member was suitable for the role.” from the report
Staffing at busy times
needs fixingSome people said staff were stretched at mealtimes and that they sometimes waited for help. Inspectors saw staff available, and the manager said staffing was being adjusted to address recent pressures and sickness.
“Two people told us that at mealtimes care staff were 'stretched' and that sometimes they had to wait for assistance.” from the report
Environment for people with dementia
needs fixingSome areas needed redecoration and were dimly lit. The dining area could be crowded, and the inspectors recommended considering current guidance when refurbishing the home.
“We recommend during the planned refurbishments, that the provider considers current best practice guidance on making the environment dementia friendly and takes action to update the premises accordingly.” from the report
- 01Have all care records for falls, choking, malnutrition and skin integrity now been checked and updated with clear staff guidance?
- 02How do you check that refrigerated medicines are stored at the correct temperature, and how have the instructions for medicines given when needed been improved?
- 03Have all staff recruitment files been reviewed, including background checks, proof of address and interview records?
- 04How many staff are scheduled at mealtimes, and what happens when there is sickness or another sudden staffing pressure?
- 05What changes have been made to improve lighting, décor, space and dementia-friendly design?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care, and the previous Good rating was compared with the findings from this visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 February 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, June 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but medicine preferences and weekly meal choices needed attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 9 May 2017. One inspector and an expert-by-experience spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed care, lunch, activities and a meeting. They also checked care records, medicine records, staff files and management audits.
The inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs without rushing. They found that medicines were given safely, risks were assessed, staff were trained, and people could access healthcare. Care plans were personal and people and relatives were involved in decisions.
People were treated with kindness and respect. The home offered activities, welcomed visitors and dealt with complaints appropriately. Inspectors found a positive staff team and regular checks on the quality of care.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report does not say that any regulations were breached.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff were available promptly and risks were reviewed and managed.
“The risks to those that used the service, staff and visitors had been identified, assessed, managed and regularly reviewed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with warmth, respect and dignity. Staff understood people's histories, preferences and support needs.
“We saw respectful, dignified and considerate interactions between staff and those that used the service as well as others.” from the report
Personal care and activities
Care plans were individual and involved people and their relatives. The home offered activities covering seven days a week.
“A programme of planned activities was available to people who lived in the home.” from the report
Regular quality checks
The home used audits, questionnaires, meetings and informal feedback to monitor care and identify improvements.
“Audits were in place to regularly assess, monitor and drive improvement in the service.” from the report
Medicine preferences not recorded
minorMedicine records were otherwise described as accurate and complete, but inspectors could not find information about how people preferred to receive their medicines.
“However, information on how people liked to have their medicines administered was not in place.” from the report
Meal choices were planned weekly
needs fixingPeople chose meals for the coming week. Inspectors said this did not fully support people who might change their mind, and the manager said they would investigate daily choices.
“However, we noted that people had to choose what they wished to eat for the coming week which did not fully support the fact people may change their mind from one meal to the next.” from the report
- 01How do you now record and follow each person's preferred way of taking their medicines?
- 02Can residents change their meal choice on the day if their wishes change?
- 03How do you make sure care plans are reviewed when a person's needs or preferences change?
- 04What activities are available for someone who does not want to join group activities?
- 05How do you use residents' and relatives' feedback to make changes to the home?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including observations, discussions, care and medicine records, staff files and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 June 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 The Heathers Nursing Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 January 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.