Archived: Heighton House

Updated 15 January 2015

This was an unannounced inspection which was completed on 8 July 2014. One inspector carried out this inspection. We spent time observing care and support in a lounge and a dining room. We also looked at the kitchen, lounge, dining area and bathrooms throughout the home. We were shown four people’s bedrooms with their consent and two of the vacant bedrooms. We also looked at records, which included two people’s care records and those relating to the management of the home.

Prior to our visit we asked for a Provider Information Return (PIR) to be returned to us. The PIR is information given to us by the provider. This is a form in which we ask the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the information included in the PIR along with information we held about the home. This included notifications this is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. We contacted Gloucestershire Council who commission the service and one health professional to obtain their views on the service and how it was being managed.

We spoke with two people living at Heighton House, four staff and the registered manager. Three of the people that lived in the home were unable to tell us about their experiences of the care they received. This was due to their complex communication needs. However, we spent time watching how the staff supported people in the lounge and kitchen of the home. After the inspection we contacted two relatives to gather their views on the quality of the care provided.

This report was written during the testing phase of our new approach to regulating adult social care services. After this testing phase, inspection of consent to care and treatment, restraint, and practice under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was moved from the key question ‘Is the service safe?’ to ‘Is the service effective?’

The ratings for this location were awarded in October 2014. They can be directly compared with any other service we have rated since then, including in relation to consent, restraint, and the MCA under the ‘Effective’ section. Our written findings in relation to these topics, however, can be read in the ‘Is the service safe’ sections of this report.

Updated 15 January 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.

This inspection was unannounced.  The previous inspection was conducted in August 2013, when we found no concerns in the areas we looked at.

When we visited there was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

Heighton House is a care home for up to eight people. This service provides care and support to people with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were five people living in the home. Each person had a single bedroom.

People who lived in the home were not safe from the risks of cross infection. This was because some areas of the home were not being cleaned thoroughly. We also found that where some people lacked mental capacity, other professionals had not been involved in the decision making process ensuring decisions were in their best interest.

Some people were offered more opportunities than others to take part in planned activities. Activity plans were not being followed consistently. People had access to healthcare professionals according to their individual needs. Staff were knowledgeable about the people they were supporting. They described people in a positive way in relation to their individual personalities and how they supported them.

People were protected from the risk of abuse because there were clear procedures in place to recognise and respond to abuse and staff had been trained in how to follow the procedures. People were supported by staff that had received appropriate training which was relevant to their roles.

There was a management structure in the home which gave clear lines of responsibility and accountability. A senior care staff was responsible for the day to day management of the home. The registered manager was responsible for another service and spent part of the working week in the other home.  The provider was monitoring the service by visiting the home on a monthly basis. However, the registered manager was not receiving the monitoring reports quickly enough to enable them to make the necessary improvements promptly.

The registered manager told us there were areas where they could improve the service for people living in the home. This included seeking people’s views where they used non-verbal communication, ensuring care was reviewed more frequently and training for staff around communication for people with a learning disability. There was an action plan in place with timescales for completion.

We found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.