Heyberry House

Updated 10 February 2021

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.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control practice was safe and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 25 January 2021 and was unannounced.

Updated 10 February 2021

We inspected the Heyberry House on the 20 March 2018. The inspection was unannounced.

Heyberry House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection.

Heyberry House provides personal care and accommodation for up to 41 older people. Nursing care is not provided. At the time of the visit 38 people lived at the home.

The home is a purpose built facility set in its own grounds in the area of Birkenhead, Wirral. The home is decorated to a good standard throughout with accommodation provided across three floors. A passenger lift enables access to the bedrooms located on the upper floors. All bedrooms are single occupancy with en-suite facilities. Specialised bathing facilities are also available on each floor. On the ground floor, there is a communal lounge, dining room and conservatory for people to use.

There was no registered manager in post at this visit. This was because the previous registered manager had achieved a promotion within Anchor Trust and had commenced in a new role. A new manager for the home had been appointed and they were in the process of registering with CQC.

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.’

We looked at the care files belonging to five people who lived at the home and saw that in the majority, their needs and risks were assessed. Risks in relation to some people’s health needs required further detail to give staff sufficient guidance on how to meet these needs appropriately. People’s daily care records which recorded people’s food and fluid intake and the personal care they had received had not always been properly reviewed. We spoke with both the regional manager and manager about the above issues. They assured us these issues would be addressed immediately.

Care plans contained person centred information. Where people lived with dementia, information about how this condition impacted on their day to day life was limited. We saw there was some good practice with regards to the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 but this required further development to ensure it was routinely applied. People’s choices were reflected in their care plans and daily records showed people’s consent was sought before support was provided. People told us they were able to choose how they lived their life at the home and that staff respected this.

We saw that people were able to express their views and suggestions about the running of the service through regular resident meetings. Records showed these meetings were inclusive and that people’s suggestions were acted upon where possible.

People told us they felt safe at the home and that staff were kind, caring and compassionate. They said their needs were responded to promptly and that whenever they asked for help, staff were always on hand to provide it. It was clear that people thought highly of the staff team and no-one had any concerns or complaints about their care. Relatives were as equally complimentary.

Medicines were managed safely and people received the medication they needed. People had access to a range of health and social care professionals in support of their needs including routine health appointments such as GP visits, dentists and opticians. People received enough to eat and drink and we saw that mealtimes were a sociable and enjoyable event.

There were a range of social and recreational activities provided. The activities we observed on the day of our visit were well-attended and people looked like they were having a good time with staff. Activities were promoted positively on a colourful noticeboard and there were lots of different things to choose from each day. Interactions between people and staff were positive and the home had a warm, homely atmosphere. We observed that staff treated people kindly, with respect and supported them at their own pace.

There were a range of quality assurance systems in place to assess the quality and safety of the service. People’s satisfaction with the service was sought through the use of a satisfaction survey and everybody’s feedback was overwhelmingly positive. The home was well led, open and transparent and the people and relatives we spoke with were more than happy with the care provided.