Heaton House

Safe

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

The home had a well‑established and proactive culture of safety, supported by clear processes and an open, transparent approach to incident management. Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities and demonstrated compliance with statutory requirements, including Duty of Candour. Children were safeguarded through robust risk management arrangements, including individual assessments, timely health checks, and ongoing monitoring of the care environment. Staff were trained to the appropriate safeguarding and restraint‑reduction standards, ensuring they were equipped to recognise and respond to risks effectively.

Mostly, effective systems supported safe record‑keeping, collaborative working, and coordinated care. Transition planning was strong and child‑centred.

Effective

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

The home delivered effective care and treatment that was consistently aligned with current evidence‑based practice and recognised standards. Staff demonstrated strong teamwork, used effective handover processes, and worked collaboratively with most partners to ensure children received coordinated, timely and appropriate care.

Effective systems supported safe delegation of clinical tasks, with staff trained and competent to undertake delegated responsibilities. Policies and procedures reflected current legislation, including the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and the Children’s Act, and staff had completed required training. Children were supported to express their views and were given time to make decisions. Processes were in place to minimise restrictive interventions through clear guidance and safe, proportionate practice.

This meant that children’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

Inconsistent communication between the home and external partners was reported, which at times affected shared understanding and the oversight of care, although since the inspection the provider has told us they have taken steps to revisit the processes around sharing of information,

The home was led by inclusive leaders who were visible and promoted a culture of openness, honesty and continuous improvement. They maintained a clear focus on improving outcomes for children and demonstrated transparency about risks and challenges within the home, taking proactive steps to address these. Staff reported a supportive working environment with strong relationships between leaders and the wider team. Systems ensured that staff received appropriate supervision, access to development opportunities, and clear processes to raise concerns through an established freedom to speak up framework.

Caring

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

Staff delivered kind, compassionate and respectful care, demonstrating empathy and patience, particularly when children were distressed. Staff communicated in ways that met children’s individual needs and supported their involvement in decisions about their care. Staff recognised and respected each child’s personal, cultural, social and religious needs, and ensured information tailored to support their emotional and physical wellbeing. However, some children we spoke to did not always feel listened to and understood.

A positive and supportive culture enabled staff to feel valued and confident in raising concerns, with wellbeing promoted through access to appropriate support services. Staff described a working environment that enabled them to deliver person‑centred, caring, and emotionally supportive care.

Responsive

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

The home delivered care that was responsive to the individual needs and preferences of each child. Staff worked collaboratively with children to develop personalised goals and care plans, ensuring support reflected what mattered most to them and adapted flexibly as their needs changed. Children accessed timely reviews and specialist healthcare where required, helping to prevent deterioration and promote holistic wellbeing. Reasonable adjustments enabled all children to understand and participate in their care.

There were clear, accessible processes for receiving feedback and complaints, which were investigated promptly with learning shared to improve practice. Staff placed a strong emphasis on listening to children’s lived experiences, which contributed to emotional safety and empowered children to feel heard, respected, and actively involved in decisions about their care.

This meant services were tailored to meet the needs of individuals and delivered to ensure flexibility, choice and continuity of care. However, children were not aware of their easy read risk management plans and there were no easy-read care plans in place. Since the inspection the provider has developed new easy read risk management and care plan templates for staff to use. However, as they were put in place after the inspection we have not been able to assess the effectiveness or if they are embedded into practice.

Well-led

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance; maintain securely an accurate record in respect of each service user.

Policies and procedures were comprehensive and mostly up to date. However, there was no policy governing the safe use, storage or management of photographs taken on home mobile phones, including arrangements to ensure compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to help keep children safe.

We found there was a weakness in the oversight of some of the provider’s own processes. Although policies are reviewed annually, leaders did not have effective systems to assure themselves that this was happening and that staff had read, understood, and were working in line with them. Policy read-and-sign trackers were inconsistently completed, with missing start dates, missing dates of reading, and no clear evidence that all required policies have been read. This meant that senior staff could not be fully assured that all staff were aware of any changes to policies to ensure they were embedded in practice when providing care to children. Since the inspection the provider has taken action to improve the process.

Inconsistent communication between the home and external partners was reported, which at times affected shared understanding and the oversight of care, although since the inspection the provider has told us they have taken steps to revisit the processes around sharing of information,

The home was led by inclusive leaders who were visible and promoted a culture of openness, honesty and continuous improvement. They maintained a clear focus on improving outcomes for children and demonstrated transparency about risks and challenges within the home, taking proactive steps to address these. Staff reported a supportive working environment with strong relationships between leaders and the wider team. Systems ensured that staff received appropriate supervision, access to development opportunities, and clear processes to raise concerns through an established freedom to speak up framework.