CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Vijaykoomar Kowlessur
Heathfield House
10 Heath Road, Hillingdon, Uxbridge, UB10 0SL
Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, staffing levels were considered sufficient and medicines were managed safely. Inspectors found that incident records did not always identify lessons learned, although the provider introduced a lessons learned form after the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and people were supported with food, healthcare and health checks. Some areas of the home looked tired and needed updating, but the provider said improvements had started.
- Caring?
- Good
- The report did not give a separate Caring rating. Inspectors said people received kind and compassionate care, and staff respected their privacy, dignity, choices and individual needs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and person-centred, and people were supported with activities, relationships and healthcare. Inspectors found that care information was not always in a format suited to people's communication needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had regular audits, care plan reviews and staff support systems. Managers responded to the issues raised and reported that improvements had been made after the inspection.
What inspectors found, October 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but identified gaps in incident learning, communication formats and some parts of the environment.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 18 July 2023. One inspector and a nurse specialist advisor visited the home. An Expert by Experience later contacted families. Inspectors spoke with four people, three staff and two relatives.
The home supported 10 people with learning disabilities or mental health needs, with staff available 24 hours a day. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and supported to make choices. Care plans were detailed and staff understood people's individual needs.
The inspection identified some improvements needed. Incident records did not always show what had been learned after accidents. Some care information was not in an accessible format. Parts of the building and an old medicines trolley needed updating. The provider said action had been taken after the inspection.
The overall rating was Good. Safe improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, while Effective, Responsive and Well-led remained Good. This was not a full comprehensive inspection, so some ratings were carried forward from the 2019 inspection.
Kind, respectful care
People told inspectors they were happy with the care. Staff understood people's needs and supported privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Good person-centred planning
Care plans included detailed guidance about each person's routines, needs and preferences. People and relatives were involved in planning and reviewing care.
“Care plans were written in a person-centred manner.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicine records, storage checks and staff competency assessments were in place.
“Medicines were managed safely. The provider had a process for the management and administration of medicines to ensure they were given as prescribed.” from the report
Responsive management
The manager acted when inspectors raised concerns and said changes had been made to incident forms, emergency plans, communication formats and the environment.
“The registered manager was responsive when the issues identified during the inspection were discussed. They implemented an action plan and made improvements following the inspection.” from the report
Incident learning was incomplete
needs fixingTwo incident records described what happened and the immediate response, but did not record further action or lessons to reduce future risks. The provider said a new lessons learned form was being used after the inspection.
“There was no information noted on any additional actions taken or any lessons learned to reduce further risk.” from the report
Communication information was not always accessible
needs fixingCare plans identified communication needs, but the format of the information did not always reflect those needs. The provider later said pictorial care plans had been developed for people who would benefit from them.
“People's communication needs were identified in their care plans, but this was not always reflected in how information was provided.” from the report
Some areas needed updating
minorInspectors found rust, damaged fixtures, an old carpet and a dirty, rusty medicines trolley. The trolley was replaced and a redecoration programme had started after the inspection.
“Some areas of the home looked tired and were in need of updating or replacement.” from the report
One resuscitation record was inconsistent
needs fixingOne person's end-of-life plan said they wanted resuscitation, while a DNACPR document said they did not. The provider said this would be reviewed with the person and relatives, and later said DNACPR records had been checked.
“There was also a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) document stating they did not want resuscitation.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to record lessons learned after incidents and accidents?
- 02How will my relative's care information be provided in the communication format they understand best?
- 03Have all the planned repairs, replacements and redecoration been completed, including checks of the medicines storage area?
- 04How are activities recorded and personalised for each person rather than using the same activities list?
- 05How will you make sure care plans and DNACPR documents always contain the same current information?
This was a focused inspection of how the home applied the principles of right support, right care and right culture, with infection prevention and control also checked; some ratings were carried forward from the 2019 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 October 2023 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.
Every inspection of Heathfield House
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- October 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 January 2011.
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.
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.
Other services run by Vijaykoomar Kowlessur
1 other service on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.