Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Heatherside Care Home, Nately Scures, Basingstoke.

Heatherside Care Home in Nately Scures, Basingstoke is a Residential home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, caring for adults over 65 yrs and caring for adults under 65 yrs. The last inspection date here was 10th December 2019

Heatherside Care Home is managed by Pearl Care (Norwich) Limited.

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Heatherside Care Home
      Scures Hill
      Nately Scures
      Basingstoke
      RG27 9JR
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01256762233
    Website:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Requires Improvement
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2019-12-10
    Last Published 2017-05-17

Local Authority:

    Hampshire

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

13th March 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection was unannounced and took place on the 13 and 14 March 2017. This was a comprehensive inspection completed to check the provider’s progress in meeting the requirements required as a result of our last inspection on 6, 20 and 21 September 2016. At that inspection we found the provider had breached four regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 (HSCA 2014). These related to the following regulations, Regulation 9, (Person centred care), Regulation 12 (Safe care and treatment), Regulation 18 (Staffing) and Regulation 17 (Good governance). The provider was served with a warning notice in relation to good governance which they were required to meet by 1 February 2017. We told the provider they needed to take action to meet all their legal requirements and we received a report setting out the action they would take to meet the regulations.

At this inspection we found improvements had been made in relation to all the requirements of the regulations identified however more time was needed to ensure people were receiving the social interaction and stimulation they required to lead interesting, full and meaningful lives.

Heatherside Care Home (referred to as Heatherside throughout this report) is a care home which provides residential care for up to 34 older people living with a range of medical conditions including Parkinson’s disease, diabetes and those living with sensory loss and dementia.

The home is situated in a village on the outskirts of Basingstoke. It comprises two floors, is situated within its own grounds and has a two acre secure rear garden. The home has 32 rooms, a communal lounge with a large television and doors leading through to a patio area and the grounds. There is a smaller quieter and more private seating area adjacent to the main lounge. There is also a dining room, bathroom and shower rooms and a lift for access to the first floor. Meals were served according to people's choice in their rooms or dining room. At the time of the inspection 28 people were living at the home. Throughout this report care staff will be referred to as 'staff'.

Heatherside does not have a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The home’s current manager was in the process of becoming registered with the CQC.

People using the service told us they felt safe. Staff understood and followed guidance to enable them to recognise and address any safeguarding concerns about people. People's safety was promoted because risks that may cause them harm had been identified and guidance provided to staff to help manage these appropriately.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to meet their needs. The provider used a staffing tool to assess people’s dependency to identify the numbers of staff required in order to meet those needs.

Recruitment procedures were fully completed to ensure people were protected from the employment of unsuitable staff.

People received their medicines safely, staff had received the appropriate training to enable them to complete their role safely. Where people received medicines in a way other than prescribed by the GP advice had been sought and followed by the appropriate healthcare professionals to ensure it remained safe to be administered by an alternative method such as crushing for example.

Contingency plans were in place to ensure the safe delivery of people's care in the event of adverse situations such as a fire, flood or utilities loss. These were easily accessible to staff and emergency personnel such as the fire service, if required to ensure people received continuity of care in the

6th September 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection was unannounced and took place on the 6, 20 and 21 September 2016.

At the last inspection on 7, 8 and 12 October 2015 we found that the provider had breached three regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 (HSCA 2014) concerning suitable numbers of staffing, treatment of those living with diabetes and safe staff recruitment working practices. We had also made a recommendation regarding the implementation of a structured and recognised induction and training package for new staff which followed the Care Certificate Standards.

We told the provider they needed to take action and we received a report setting out the action they would take to meet the regulations. At this inspection we found that some improvements had been made with regard to one of the breaches identified. However during this inspection we identified two continuing breaches and a further two breaches of the HSCA 2014.

Heatherside Care Home (referred to as Heatherside throughout this report) is a care home which provides residential care for up to 34 older people living with a range of medical conditions including diabetes and dementia.

The home is situated in a village on the outskirts of Basingstoke. It comprises two floors, is situated within its own grounds and has a two acre secure rear garden. The home has 34 rooms, a communal lounge with a television and doors leading through to a patio area and the grounds. There is a smaller quieter and more private seating area adjacent to the main lounge. There is also a dining room, bathroom and shower rooms and a lift for access. Meals were served according to people’s choice in their rooms or dining room. At the time of the inspection 30 people were living at the home.

Heatherside does not have a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The previous registered manager had left Heatherside four months prior to this inspection and a new manager had been immediately appointed by the provider. At the time of the inspection they were in the process of becoming registered with the CQC. Throughout this report care staff will be referred to as ‘staff’.

There were not effective systems in place to identify whether there was sufficient staff deployed to meet people’s individual needs in a timely fashion. Where the need for additional staff had been identified, the provider did not ensure that these were made available. The provider had not ensured that regular reviews of people’s dependency needs were carried out to identify the correct number of staff required to meet people’s needs.

People were not always protected from the unsafe administration of medicines. Senior staff responsible for administering medicines had received training to ensure people’s medicines were administered, stored and disposed of correctly. However we could not see that appropriate advice had always been sought from healthcare professionals to ensure medicines were safe to be provided in a way other than prescribed.

Care plans and risk assessments contained detailed information to assist staff to provide care in a manner that respected each person’s individual requirements and promoted their dignity. People were encouraged and supported by staff to make choices about their care including how they spent their day in the home. However at the time of the inspection these care plans and risk assessments were not being reviewed monthly in accordance with the provider’s guidelines. This was required to ensure they contained the most up to date relevant information and guidance to assist staff in delivering safe and effective care.

People were

30th December 2014 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection was completed by an inspector. At the previous inspection on 4 July 2014 the service was found to be not meeting people’s care and welfare needs. The risks to people from developing pressure sores had been assessed and managed; however, there was a lack of written guidance for staff. There was conflicting information in people’s nutritional care plans to ensure people received the support they needed. People were at risk of not receiving the correct care as the guidance to staff was unclear.

Following the inspection the provider sent us an action plan stating what action they would take to ensure compliance with this regulation. The purpose of this inspection was to check that the provider had taken the required actions.

On the day of the inspection there were 34 people living at Heatherside Care Home. As part of this inspection we spoke with four people who use the service, the manager, the acting deputy manager, one member of the care staff and two kitchen staff. We reviewed four people’s care records in relation to their nutrition and the management of the risk of pressure sores.

Since the last inspection there had been a change in the management of the service. The new manager has submitted an application to the Care Quality Commission to become the registered manager of the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

The risks to people of developing pressure sores were managed. People had the correct equipment pressure relieving equipment in place to manage identified risks to them. People had written care plans to manage the risks from pressure ulcers and the manager took action to ensure these were available on people’s files.

People’s nutritional care plans and risk assessments had been reviewed and contained clearer information about nutritional risks to people and how to manage them. Staff had received relevant training to enable them to screen nutritional risks to people. The manager took action to ensure staff updated the screening tool monthly when people were weighed.

4th July 2014 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

An adult social care inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

As part of this inspection we spoke with four of the 34 people who use the service, three people’s relatives, one visiting professional, the manager and four staff. We also reviewed records relating to the management of the home which included, four care plans and daily care records.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff have been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

The home was clean and there were processes in place to manage the risk of infection. People we spoke with and their relatives were satisfied with the level of cleanliness of the home. We noted that the service did not have a sluice to clean and wash commode pans. However, the provider was aware of the need for this and was making the necessary arrangements to provide one.

There were sufficient staff employed by the service to meet people’s needs. One person told us “There are enough staff” and another said “Staff have time to spend with us.” We observed that staff were busy but people’s care needs were met in a timely manner. The manager had sought people’s views on staffing and was in the process of increasing the staffing on one shift in response to the feedback they had received.

Is the service effective?

People we spoke with felt confident in the provider’s ability to meet their care needs. One person told us “Staff understand my needs.”

The service had used risk screening tools to identify risks to people. However, we saw evidence that staff had not fully completed the form provided to assess the risk of malnutrition to people. There were not effective care plans in place to provide staff with guidance about how the risk of people becoming malnourished was to be managed. The risk of people developing pressure sores had been assessed and where people required pressure relieving equipment this had been provided. However, people did not have a care plan in place to provide staff with guidance on the management of this risk to people. We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to people’s care and welfare.

Is the service caring?

We observed that staff were caring in their interactions with people. We spoke with people and their relatives who were positive about the care provided by staff. One person told us “Carers are very good” and another person’s relative told us “Staff are very good.”

We saw staff treated people with respect and dignity. One person told us “They treat me with dignity.” Staff had consulted people about decisions in relation to their care. People were able to exercise choice in relation to how they wanted their care provided.

Is the service responsive?

We saw evidence that the service was responsive to changes in people’s needs. We observed that the service responded promptly to the deterioration in one person’s health on the day of the inspection. Staff ensured that people’s needs for fluid in the hot weather had been met. The service had responded to issues raised by people. One person told us “I complained about staff coming and doing checks on me at night so they no longer come in.” This person felt that staff had listened and responded to the issue they had raised.

Is the service well-led?

The home had been run for a period of time by an interim manager in the absence of the registered manager. However, from 16 June 2014 the service had appointed a new manager to run the service. The new manager informed us that they were in the process of submitting their application to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to become the registered manager of the service.

We saw evidence that people’s views about the service had been sought via meetings and surveys. People told us that the new manager was visible within the home and that they felt they could raise issues as required. One person told us “We have meetings to say how things are going.” We saw evidence that where issues had been identified there were action plans in place.

15th January 2014 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

People told us they felt safe, cared for and that staff respected choices they had made. One person said, “staff are very good to me, if they are late coming to me in the morning I ring my bell and they come to me straight away”. Other comments included, “I like it here as everyone is friendly” and “they like me to call them at night if I need to get up as I’ve had one or two falls”. However, we found improvements were needed to ensure staff considered people’s disabilities so as to be respectful of individual needs.

People’s nutritional needs were assessed and people told us they mostly enjoyed the quality of the food, and were provided with a choice of meals. Comments included, “I wish they would change the menus occasionally” and “meals are very good”.

There were procedures to protect people from abuse. Staff were knowledgeable of people's specific health and personal care needs and had received training. Further training was scheduled by the provider to update staffs skills and knowledge that included communication and person centred approaches.

People and their relatives told us they were kept informed, were listened to and given opportunities to give their view of the services provided. Comments included, “sometimes staff come round with a list of questions, I’m sure if there was anything you wanted to say to staff they would listen”. The home had health and safety measures in place that promoted the safety of people and visitors to the home.

10th January 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We spoke with three staff, five people living in Heatherside Care Home and family members and health professionals who were visiting the home. We examined records, minutes of meetings and surveys. People we spoke with who lived in the home told us they were happy with their care and support and were well treated by the care staff. We were told it was safe place to live and that people who lived in the home were treated with respect. A visitor told us "We visit unannounced and we've seen that the staff are kind and patient with people here".

We found that the home’s staff sought people’s consent before they received any care or treatment and the staff acted in accordance with people’s wishes.

The care plans we saw provided details of people's individual needs, wishes and preferences. The home sought advice from external healthcare professionals where necessary and this was recorded in people's care files.

The home had safe systems in place for the storing and administering of medicines and staff received appropriate training in this area.

We found that appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work and there were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. Staff had also received appropriate induction training.

People had been made aware of the complaints procedure. People told us their comments and complaints were listened to and acted on, without the fear that they would be discriminated against for making a complaint.

8th March 2012 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Two people told us they visited Heatherside Care Home before deciding if it was the best place for them.

Everyone we spoke to were very complementary about the staff, one relative said “all the staff are very caring and informative.”

Peoples told us that the providers visited regularly and the home and gardens were well maintained.

People told us that they had plenty of opportunities to get involved in having their say about how the service is run. They also told us that they were confident that if they reported any problems, they would be dealt with promptly and effectively.

1st January 1970 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection was unannounced and took place on the 7, 8 and 12 October 2015.

Heatherside is a care home which provides residential care for up to 34 older people who have a range of needs, including those living with epilepsy, diabetes and dementia. The care home comprised of two floors set within two acres of grounds. At the time of the inspection 33 people were using the service.

People told us that whilst they felt safe they were having to wait long times to receive assistance. People were not always getting their bathing needs met which was confirmed by care staff. There were not always enough suitably skilled and competent care staff deployed to meet people’s needs in a timely fashion.

Recruitment procedures were not fully completed in order to protect people from the deployment of unsuitable care staff. The provider had not ensured that a full employment history had been obtained from care staff. This is required to make sure care staff can explain any gaps in employment when they have been working with adults who are vulnerable. The provider had however obtained character and professional references to check care staff’s suitability for the role.

People living with specific health conditions such as diabetes were not always being monitored effectively. Records showed that people with persistent high blood glucose levels were not monitored as frequently as required. People were not referred to appropriate healthcare professionals in a timely manner when high levels of blood glucose levels were documented.

People using the service told us they felt safe. Staff understood and followed the provider’s guidance to enable them to recognise and address any safeguarding concerns about people.

People’s safety was promoted because risks that may cause them harm had been identified and managed. People were supported by care staff who encouraged them to remain independent. Appropriate risk assessments were in place to keep people safe.

Senior care staff responsible for supporting people with their medicines had received additional training to ensure that people’s medicines were being administered, stored and disposed of correctly.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. People told us they were able to choose their meals and they enjoyed what was provided. Records showed people’s food and drink preferences were documented in their care plans and were understood by the chef. People at risk of malnutrition and dehydration were assessed to ensure their needs were met. However, records for people who required food and fluid chart monitoring were not always completed fully. As a result it could not always be identified whether people were eating and drinking sufficient to maintain their health.

Care staff underwent the provider’s own induction process when they started work at the home. Staff had been required to undertake training in a number of areas although this was not the industry standard induction process. Guidance on implementing a nationally recognised induction and training package had been sought before the inspection. Care staff had been encouraged to undertake professional qualifications. Care staff also worked with experienced care staff prior to delivering care to assess their ability and confidence before delivering care independently. A recommendation has been made for the provider to implement the care certificate induction and training package for all care staff.  

People were supported by care staff to make their own decisions. Staff were knowledgeable about the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA 2005). The service worked with people, relatives and social care professionals when required to assess people’s capacity to make specific decisions for themselves. Care staff sought people’s consent before delivering care and support. Documentation showed people’s decisions to receive care had been appropriately assessed, respected and documented.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. An appropriate application had been submitted to the relevant supervisory body to ensure that one person living at the home was not being unlawfully restricted.

Care staff demonstrated they knew and understood the needs of the people they were supporting. People told us they were happy with the care provided. The registered manager and care staff were able to identify and discuss the importance of maintaining people’s respect and privacy at all times. People were encouraged and supported by care staff to make choices about their care including how and where they spent their day.

People had care plans which were personalised to their needs and wishes. They contained detailed information to assist care staff to provide care in a manner that respected each person’s individual requirements. Records showed that relatives were encouraged to be involved at the care planning stage, during regular reviews and when their family members’ health needs changed.

People did not always know how to complain but told us they would be happy to do so if required. Procedures were in place for the manager to monitor, investigate and respond to complaints in an effective way. People, relatives and care staff were encouraged to provide feedback on the quality of the service during regular meetings with care staff and the manager as well as the completion of customer satisfaction questionnaires.

The provider’s values and philosophy of care were communicated to people and available to care staff. Care staff did not always know what these meant for them but people told us, and we saw, these standards were evidenced in the way that care was delivered.

Heatherside did not have a registered manager in post. The service is required by a condition of its registration to have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. A new manager had been appointed by the provider 11 weeks before the inspection and were in the process of becoming registered with the CQC.

The provider had a regular monitoring quality monitoring process in place to assess the quality of the service being provided however this was not always effective in identifying areas for improvement. When areas for improvement had been identified actions had been taken promptly to ensure the on-going quality of the service provided.

The manager and care staff promoted a culture which focused on providing individual care which was dignified and respectful. People were assisted by care staff who were encouraged to raise concerns with the manager.

Care staff told us they felt supported by the manager.

We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

 

 

Latest Additions: