CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Heathers Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks were assessed and reviewed, there were enough staff, recruitment checks were in place and infection control arrangements were suitable. Inspectors recommended better monitoring of medicine patches and 'when required' medicines.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and preferences were assessed before they moved in. Staff had relevant training and supervision, and people were supported with food, drink, healthcare and their own decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and respectful. Inspectors saw people’s dignity, independence, privacy and choices being supported.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reflected people's needs, preferences and life stories. People had access to activities, support to maintain relationships and a complaints process that was described as timely.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open and positive culture, with audits and checks used to monitor care and safety. This rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some medicines monitoring that needed improvement.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 31 October and 2 November 2023. They spoke with 10 people, five relatives and 10 staff. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and described staff as kind and respectful. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable risk assessments, good support with food and healthcare, personalised care and effective complaint arrangements.
There was a medicines shortfall. Inspectors were not always clear that medicine patches were being moved as directed or properly monitored. They also found some unsuitable homely remedies, but prompt action was taken during the inspection. The overall rating remained Good.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about the staff. Inspectors observed caring relationships and support that respected dignity and independence.
“People told us staff treated them with kindness and respect.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records included people's physical, emotional and mental health needs, life stories and preferences. People and relatives were involved in decisions about care.
“Care plans were person centred and documented people's physical, emotional and mental health needs including their life stories and the things that are important to them.” from the report
Staffing and safety
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs safely. Risk assessments, emergency plans, recruitment checks and infection control arrangements were in place.
“The provider ensured there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff.” from the report
Improved leadership
The home had quality checks covering areas such as care records, safeguarding, training, medicines and accidents. Inspectors said the management systems had improved since the previous inspection.
“Systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service on a regular basis had improved since our last inspection of the service.” from the report
Medicine patch monitoring
needs fixingRecords did not always show that patches were moved in line with the manufacturer's directions or that checks confirmed they stayed in place. Inspectors recommended stronger monitoring.
“It was not always clear that the site of application was changed in accordance with the manufacturer's directions and that documented monitoring was in place to ensure patches remained in place.” from the report
Homely remedies
needs fixingSome medicines held as homely remedies were not suitable for use in the home. The manager raised this with the supplying pharmacy and acted promptly during the inspection.
“Some of the medicines held by the service as "homely remedies" were not suitable for use in the service.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to check that medicine patches are moved and monitored correctly?
- 02How are 'when required' medicine protocols kept up to date and checked by staff?
- 03What action was taken about the unsuitable homely remedies, and how is this now checked?
- 04Has the appointed manager completed registration with the CQC since this inspection?
- 05How are audits used to make sure the improvements in medicines management are maintained?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control, with the premises and care provided both reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 December 2023 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 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control arrangements were keeping people safe.
Inspectors visited the home on 9 November 2020 as part of a national review of infection prevention and control in care homes. The visit was announced.
They found good arrangements for visitors, including screening, personal protective equipment and hand washing facilities. The home used its garden house to reduce visitors entering the main building.
Inspectors were assured that staff had the protective equipment they needed, people were supported to keep apart, and the home was clean. They also found that testing was available for people living at the home and staff.
This was not a full rated inspection. The service was inspected but not rated, and only infection prevention and control under Safe was assessed.
Visitor safety
The home had measures to screen visitors, provide protective equipment and hand washing facilities, and reduce the number of people entering the main building.
“These included screening visitors on arrival, providing them with appropriate PPE and hand washing facilities” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff had access to the protective equipment needed to support people safely.
“Staff had access to the PPE they required to support people safely, in line with national guidelines.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home was clean, with attention paid to frequently touched areas and suitable cleaning products available.
“The home was clean. Domestic staff were aware to clean 'high touch' areas frequently and had access to suitable cleaning products.” from the report
Testing and distancing
Inspectors were assured that testing was available and that people were supported to keep apart within the home.
“We were assured that the provider was accessing testing for people using the service and staff.” from the report
Further development
minorCQC signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach. The report does not say what specific changes were needed.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What visitor screening, personal protective equipment and hand washing arrangements are in place now?
- 02How are you currently supporting people to maintain social distancing within the home?
- 03How often are high-touch areas cleaned, and which cleaning products are used?
- 04How are testing arrangements managed for residents and staff now?
- 05What changes did you make after CQC signposted resources to develop your infection control approach?
This was an announced thematic review focused on infection prevention and control; the service was inspected but not rated and the other four questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 December 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.
Every inspection of The Heathers Residential Care Home
7 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at The Heathers Residential Care Home →
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at The Heathers Residential Care Home →
- May 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 January 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Bromley
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
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.