Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Archangel Enterprises

Heathfield House

318 Uttoxetter Road, Blythe Bridge, Stafford, ST11 9LY

Requires improvementpublished 2 February 2024, 2 years ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Requires improvement
Care plans and risk assessments were not always accurate or reviewed after changes. Falls causing injury were not reported to the local authority as potential safeguarding concerns.
Effective?
Requires improvement
Mental capacity assessments and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications were not consistently completed. Healthcare advice was not always added to care plans.
Caring?
Good
No separate Caring rating was given in this focused inspection. People said they felt safe and supported, and staff understood their individual needs.
Responsive?
Good
No separate Responsive rating was given in this focused inspection. People were supported to do activities they enjoyed at the home and in the local community.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
Audits did not identify the problems found by inspectors. There was no effective system for investigating incidents and recording improvements.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2024

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks in care records, safeguarding, consent and management systems.

This was an unannounced inspection on 20 December 2023. The inspector spoke with people, a relative, care staff and the registered manager. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff recruitment files and quality checks.

The home had enough staff and people and relatives said they felt safe and supported. Medicines were mostly managed safely, people could receive visitors, and staff supported people with food, activities and healthcare.

However, care records were not always accurate or updated. Falls were not always properly reviewed, some safeguarding concerns were not reported, and required checks on new staff were delayed. Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards requirements were not consistently followed.

The overall rating changed from Good to Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. The provider must send an action plan, and CQC will monitor progress.

What inspectors praised
  • Enough staff

    Inspectors found enough suitably skilled staff, and staffing levels were adjusted when people's needs required it.

    People told us and we saw there were enough suitably skilled staff to support people in line with their agreed needs.from the report
  • Mostly safe medicines

    Medicines were mostly ordered, stored, given, recorded and disposed of safely. One storage issue involving medicines pots still needed improvement.

    We saw that medicines were mostly managed safely. This included the; ordering, storage, administration, recording and disposal of medicines.from the report
  • Supportive relationships

    People and relatives spoke positively about the home. Staff knew people's needs and risks, even though records were not always reliable.

    Despite this, care staff had a good understanding of people's needs and risks.from the report
  • Choice and community life

    People were supported to make choices about food, décor and activities, and to enjoy things both at the home and in the local community.

    People told us and care records showed they were supported to do the things they enjoyed both at the service and in the local community.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Falls and care records

    serious

    Care plans did not always reflect people's current needs. Falls were not always reviewed properly, so action to reduce further harm was not assured.

    When people fell, their risk of falling again was not always reviewed which meant action was not always taken to reduce the risk of harm from further falls.from the report
  • Safeguarding reports

    serious

    Five falls involving three people caused injuries needing first aid or medical care, but none were reported to the local authority as potential omissions of care or neglect.

    None of these had been reported to the local authority as potential omissions of care/neglect as required.from the report
  • Consent and liberty safeguards

    serious

    Mental capacity assessments were missing, and people subject to restrictions did not have the required Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications or authorisations. One person's medicine was routinely given covertly against professional advice.

    All of these people had restrictions upon them that would be classed as a deprivation of liberty.from the report
  • Management oversight

    serious

    Quality audits had not identified the problems found during the inspection. There was no effective system for investigating incidents and preventing them happening again.

    The auditing systems in place to assess and monitor safety and quality were not effective and had not identified the concerns detailed in this inspection report.from the report
  • Recruitment checks

    needs fixing

    References and DBS checks were not always completed promptly. Where checks were delayed, risk assessments were not completed.

    Where there were delays in obtaining references and/or DBS checks, risks assessments were not completed to ensure the risks associated with staff working without these checks had been assessed and managed.from the report
  • Home environment

    needs fixing

    Frayed carpets and an uneven floor in a dark corridor increased the risk of falls. These hazards were not recorded in an environmental risk assessment or improvement plan.

    Some carpets at the home were frayed and there was an uneven floor in a dark area of corridor increasing the risk of falls.from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What changes have you made to ensure care plans and falls risk assessments are accurate and reviewed after a fall or change in need?
  2. 02Have all falls involving injury now been reviewed and reported through the correct safeguarding process?
  3. 03Have mental capacity assessments and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications or authorisations been completed for everyone who needs them?
  4. 04What checks are now completed before new staff work at the home, and what happens if references or DBS checks are delayed?
  5. 05What has been done about the frayed carpets, uneven corridor floor and the lack of a service improvement plan?

This was a focused inspection planned to review Safe and Well-led, with Effective also reviewed after concerns about the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards; ratings for questions not inspected carried over from the 2018 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 February 2024 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Heathfield House

3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.

  1. February 2024Requires improvementcurrent rating
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Heathfield House

  2. February 2022Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. August 2018Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. June 2016Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. April 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. December 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. November 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. November 2010

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 November 2010.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

Same provider

Other services run by Archangel Enterprises Limited

1 other service on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.

The Loont

Winsford, CW7
Requires improvement
Residential
Rated 3 years agocare home
Nearby

Other care homes near Stafford

Blythe Bridge

Stoke-on-Trent, ST11 · 1.0 km
Good
Residential
Rated 6 years agocare home

Compassionate Lodge

Stoke-on-Trent, ST11 · 1.3 km
Not yet rated
Residential
Not yet ratedcare home

Glyn House

Stoke-on-Trent, ST11 · 1.4 km
Requires improvement
Residential
Rated 20 months agocare home

Morgan House

Stoke-on-Trent, ST11 · 1.4 km
Good
Residential
Rated 4 years agocare home

Allan House

Stoke-on-Trent, ST11 · 1.4 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 6 years agocare home