Heaton House Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

People told us staff sought their consent before providing care. Information regarding people’s capacity and ability to make decisions, was documented within their care records. Legal processes relating to depriving people of their liberty had been adhered to, with a log used to monitor applications, outcomes and expiry dates.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

People told us staff sought their consent before providing care. Comments included, “I have had no problems with this staff. They always ask for my consent. I can do what I want here, I don't feel restricted” and “I think the staff have a pleasant manner and always ask for my permission if I need any help.” The provider’s new care planning system contained a section with signed consent forms. We noted these were in place for the people whose care plans we reviewed. We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The provider used a log used to monitor DoLS applications. Overall, these were being managed in line with guidance, although we noted one reapplication had been submitted late and one person’s DoLS had expired but there was no record of a reapplication being made. The provider agreed to address this during the assessment.