Heaton House Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

People’s care records contained some inconsistent, incomplete or contradictory information, including details of their showering or bathing preferences. This meant staff did not have all the information they needed to provide person centred care, especially newer staff or agency workers. People told us they received enough to eat. However, records relating to nutrition were not always detailed and fluid records indicated some people were not always given enough to drink. People were supported to stay well and see medical professionals, as necessary. People were asked for their views, including about their care, the environment and how they wanted to spend their time. Surveys were also used to gather views and drive improvements. Information was available to people in a way which met their needs. People’s wishes regarding end-of-life care were sought and listed within their care records.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Since our last assessment, the provider had switched to a new care planning system. We found further work was needed to ensure people’s care records were detailed, accurate and person centred. Reviews of people’s care plans and associated records, highlighted some issues with conflicting information, gaps in the guidance for staff, and some care plans still needed to be completed. For example, one person’s nutrition care plan referred to the person having diabetes and signs to look for which would indicate an increase or decrease in blood sugar levels, but not what staff should do if either of these occurred. The same person’s communication care plan stated they could communicate effectively verbally, then later stated they couldn’t express their needs, which was contradictory. When questioned, staff were knowledgeable about this person’s needs and how to meet them, therefore this was a record keeping issue. People’s preferences regarding showering or bathing had also not been captured, to ensure they were being offered these in line with their wishes. Records indicated people were on average having one shower or bath per week, with face and/or body washes provided the rest of time. During our site visits we found people looked clean and well presented. However, better recording of people’s wishes was needed to ensure a person-centred approach to bathing was being provided.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We checked whether the provider was meeting the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says that people should get the support they need in relation to communication.

People’s care records explained their communication needs and any aids they required to support this. Since the last assessment in September 2024, we found the provider had taken further steps in to ensuring they met the requirements of the AIS. During our initial site visit, we noted a poster advertising how information was available in a range of formats, and for people to request what works best for them. We spoke with people who had a visual impairment, and they confirmed information was provided to them in the way they wanted. We discussed with the provider the need for all information on display to be made available in an accessible format for all people.

People and their relatives' views were sought and used to help drive improvements. People told us they would speak to staff should they have any concerns, and relatives commented on an increase in meeting completion. Comments included, “The new manager has instigated resident and relative meetings. The management is supportive and approachable” and “I would recommend this home because staff listen to what you need. They are all good and do everything they can for us.” We noted resident meetings had been held in September, November and December 2024. Minutes of the meetings included the agenda, a record of conversations which had taken place, any actions or suggestions made and updates on their progress. We noted people’s views had been sought on menus, activities, likes and dislikes and the home’s décor. Only one relative meeting had occurred, with the provider telling us attendance was an issue. We discussed advertising meetings for the upcoming year, to allow relatives the opportunity to plan their attendance better. We will follow this up at future assessments. The provider continued to circulate surveys as part of the meeting process. These covered a specific area, such as mealtime experience or activities. Feedback on people’s views, suggestions and actions taken was displayed on a whiteboard in the reception area. The provider had an up-to-date complaints policy. We found any complaints received had been managed in line with this.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People and relatives were largely complimentary about meal provision. One relative told us, “[Relative] seems to eat and drink well here. The food seems to be good, and [relative] likes it.” A person stated, “There's always fresh fruit. I like the food here, it's all good.” Some people felt there was not much variety in the meals, although a new menu had recently been introduced to address this. However, food and fluid recording required improvement. Based on fluid charts viewed, we were not assured people were receiving fluid in line with their assessed needs. The provider had identified how much people should drink each day, but records indicated staff were not always offering this much. Food charts lacked detail, and for people requiring a modified diet, the way some entries were written suggested foods had been provided which were contrary to guidance. Observation during mealtimes showed this was not the case, but records should accurately reflect what was provided. People received support to stay well. The home continued to receive input from a local GP surgery. Referrals had been made timely to other medical professionals as required.

Where people had chosen to discuss this information, care records contained information about their end-of-life preferences. The home received support from district nurses and people’s GP with the provision of end-of-life care. This included the administration of certain end of life medications. When reviewing the home’s compliments folder, we noted the home had recently received positive feedback from a professional about the support the home and its staff had provided to a person in receipt of end-of-life care.