Heathland Court Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

At this inspection we found the service had improved. They were rated requires improvement at their last inspection for the key question, 'Is the service well-led?' This key question is now rated good because the service has demonstrated they are consistently well-led by a competent managers, which now includes a registered manager and two clinical lead nurses, who work well as a team. The providers oversight and scrutiny systems were effectively operated. This meant the safety and quality of the service people received was continually monitored, assessed and improved. People's concerns and complaints were well-managed. The provider recognised the importance of learning lessons when things went wrong. They were continuously improving the service to ensure they maintained quality, safe care for people who lived in the care home.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Leaders ensured there was a shared vision and culture within the home that the wider staff team bought into. The staff within the home demonstrated a positive, compassionate, open culture where people, relatives, staff and external health care professionals felt comfortable in. Staff at all levels have a well-developed understanding of equality, diversity and human rights, and they prioritise safe, high-quality, compassionate care. Information about equality and diversity was actively promoted within the home through information boards on display for everyone to refer to. Staff that we spoke with were positive about the culture within the home and the leadership of the management team.

Individual staff supervision and staff team meetings were used by the provider to remind staff about their organisations underlying core values and principles. These were also on display in the care home.

Staff told us that both the registered manager and deputy were inclusive and had an open door policy. The managers demonstrated a good understanding of the areas of development and their plans for service.

The managers had the relevant skills, knowledge, and experience to effectively lead the service, which they did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The provider valued and listened to the views of staff. Staff told us they were encouraged to contribute their ideas about what the service did well and what they could do better during regular individual and group meetings with their line managers and fellow co-workers. This showed us the provider was willing to listen and take prompt action in response to feedback received from staff. Managers and staff told us the provider had a complaints policy which detailed how people could raise concerns if they were dissatisfied with the service they received and the process for dealing with their concerns.

The provider promoted an open and inclusive culture which sought the views of people living in the care home, their relatives, and staff. One person told us, “The staff do listen and act upon what we have to say. I asked for some of the meals on the weekly menus to be changed and the chef did as we had requested, which was great.” A relative added, “The managers and staff are really easy going and so approachable, especially the deputy manager. I feel able to confide in her about anything that’s troubling us.” The provider used a range of methods to gather people’s views about what the care home did well or might do better. For example, people living in the care home and their relatives were routinely invited to attend group meetings with staff and participate in the providers own stakeholder satisfaction surveys. The provider also had a complaints policy which detailed how people could raise concerns if they were dissatisfied with the service they received and the process for dealing with their concerns, which we saw conspicuously displayed in the communal areas.

Staff told us managers treated them well and they felt they got all the support and guidance they needed from them. A member of staff said, "I feel very supported by all the managers and senior nursing staff here. It’s a wonderful place to work.” Another member of staff added, “All the managers are easy to get along and talk too.”

Staff had ongoing opportunities to reflect on their working practices and professional development. This included regular in-person individual and group supervision meetings with their line manager and co-workers, and annual appraisals of their overall work performance. The provider valued and listened to the views of staff. Staff were encouraged to contribute their ideas about what the service did well and what they could do better during the meetings described above.

Managers and staff told us they routinely met to discuss any changes in people’s care and support needs conducted daily tours of the premises to observe staffs working practices. This was also used as a spot audit and visual inspection of the premises. The managers were aware they needed to continue improving how they operated their oversight and scrutiny systems. The managers understood their responsibilities with regards to the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and what they needed to notify us about without delay.

The providers governance framework was operated effectively and ensured they continuously learnt lessons and improved the quality and safety of the service they provided to people. The quality and safety of the service people received was routinely monitored by managers, nurses and senior care staff at both a provider and service level by conducting regular audits and checks, and obtaining stakeholder feedback. Furthermore, managers and senior nursing staff met every morning to discuss any changes to people’s needs and the packages of care they received and conduct walk-about tours of the premises to observe staffs working practices. The outcome of the audits described above and feedback from stakeholders were routinely analysed to identify issues, learn lessons and develop action plans to improve the service they provided people. These quality assurance systems had indicators that identified how the service was performing, areas requiring improvement and areas where the service was achieving or exceeding targets. Key performance indicators included care plan reviews, satisfaction surveys and occurrences, such as accidents and incidents.

People told us they received ongoing support from various external health and social care professionals who represented them.

Managers and staff told us they regularly consulted with these external bodies and professionals, welcomed their views and advice, and shared best practice ideas with their staff.

External health and social care professional’s told us the provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership with them, sharing information and learning together. One external health care professional said, “The provider is good at working in partnership with us and they do listen and take on board what we have to say.” Another added, “The managers and staff listen and act upon our recommendations. We put recommendations in place and I noted the staff were following them when I last visited, which was positive. They are particularly good in partnership working.”

The provider worked closely with various external agencies and professionals including, GP’s, community nurses, occupational therapist, social workers and Local Authorities. This was underpinned by a policy of relevant information being shared with appropriate services within the community or elsewhere.

Staff and leaders demonstrated a good understanding of the challenges faced within the service and the areas of improvement. Leaders encouraged staff to contribute their ideas for improvement through various meetings held at different organisation levels.

There were effective processes to ensure that learning happens when things go wrong, and from examples of good practice. For example, weekly clinical risk meetings and head of departments were held regularly. The registered manager did daily walkarounds in the home to identify any immediate concerns that needed addressing. Surveys for residents, relatives and staff were held twice a year and included an action plan consisting of a 'you said, we did' poster to let them know the action the service was taking. Commitment to continuous quality improvement was demonstrated through a robust system called 'Quality Metrics' which formed part of the providers quality framework to measure the outcome of care delivery. Within this, a number of metrics were used such as monitoring the number of pressure ulcers, medicines audits, safeguarding, nutrition, falls, infection and resident feedback. Learning outcomes were extrapolated from these for ongoing monitoring.