CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Herons
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was using PPE safely, managing visitors and admissions, following social distancing rules, cleaning effectively and accessing COVID-19 testing.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Targeted inspection found the home was meeting infection-control measures, but it was inspected but not rated.
Inspectors visited the home on 2 February 2021. The visit was announced and focused only on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
They found good practice in several areas. This included staff using PPE correctly, increased cleaning, social distancing arrangements, safe admissions and regular COVID-19 testing.
Inspectors said they were assured that the home was protecting people from infection. No overall rating or Safe rating was given.
Infection control
The home had an up-to-date infection-control policy and had increased cleaning of high-touch surfaces.
“Cleaning schedules had been increased to ensure high touch surfaces such as door handles were cleaned regularly.” from the report
Safe use of PPE
Staff were observed using the correct protective equipment, and PPE was available throughout the home.
“Staff were observed to wear the correct Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in line with government guidance.” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to keep in touch with family and friends through telephones and video calls. A separate visitors' area had also been provided.
“People were supported to maintain contact with family members and friends using telephones and video calling.” from the report
Testing and safe activities
People and staff were regularly tested for COVID-19. The home also supported socially distanced activities.
“People and staff were regularly tested for COVID-19.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently welcomed and managed in the separate visitors' area?
- 02How do you make sure staff have enough PPE and use it correctly?
- 03How often are high-touch surfaces cleaned now, and how is this checked?
- 04How are people and staff currently tested for COVID-19 or other infections?
- 05How do you continue to support activities and family contact safely?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated overall or for Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 February 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, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and food quality needing attention.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 25 September 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They also checked care records, medicines, staff recruitment files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, staff were kind, medicines were managed safely and care records were detailed and personal.
Inspectors found some areas to improve. Hoist and sling instructions were not detailed enough in two records. Views about the food were mixed, one complaints file did not contain the investigation outcome, and audits did not always follow the provider's own schedule.
The overall Good rating means the inspectors found the home met the required standards at this inspection. The previous overall rating was also Good, while the Well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement.
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were stored and given safely. Only trained staff who had been assessed as competent administered them.
“Medicines were only administered by staff who received training and had been assessed as competent.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff positively. Inspectors saw staff spending time with people, protecting their privacy and responding kindly when someone was distressed.
“Staff were caring and kind. People told us, "Nothing is too much trouble for them” from the report
Personalised care
Care records included people's preferences, communication needs and ways to reduce anxiety. Records were reviewed regularly.
“Care records contained sufficient detail to enable staff to provide individualised care and support for people.” from the report
Activities and social contact
People could take part in varied activities, including music, quizzes, crafts and one-to-one sessions. The home also had regular visits from children, entertainers and a chaplain.
“There were a range of activities available for people to participate in.” from the report
Hoist and sling records
seriousTwo care records did not give enough detail about using a hoist or sling. This could have affected the safety of the person and staff, although the home said it corrected the shortfall after the inspection.
“Neither record provided enough information about the use of the hoist or sling to ensure the safety of the person and staff.” from the report
Mixed views about food
needs fixingSome people enjoyed the meals, but others felt the food was getting worse. Ask how the home responds to current feedback about meals.
“Feedback on the quality of food was mixed.” from the report
Complaint records
needs fixingOne complaint had been investigated, but the file did not retain the details of the investigation or its outcome.
“The complaint had been dealt with by a senior manager and details of the investigation and outcome were not retained in the file.” from the report
Audit arrangements
needs fixingThe home completed several audits, but they did not always follow the provider's own audit schedule. Ask how this is now checked.
“Although a range of in-house audits were completed at regular intervals this did not always match with the registered providers matrix.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to the two care records about hoist and sling use, and how are these records checked now?
- 02How do you collect and act on people's current views about the quality and choice of food?
- 03How are complaints now recorded, including the investigation, outcome and any action taken?
- 04Who is currently responsible for the home following the registered manager's departure?
- 05How do you make sure all planned audits are completed according to the provider's schedule?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided; the previous overall rating was Good, while the previous Well-led rating was Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 October 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 The Herons
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 April 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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.