Heaton House Care Home

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 13 February 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of assessment: 2 to 17 December 2025. Heaton House Care Home is a residential care home, registered to support up to 21 older people, including those living with dementia. The assessment included 3 on site visits, with additional information and evidence reviewed remotely.

The assessment was completed to check if improvements had been made following our last assessment in January 2025. Following that assessment, we took regulatory action due to identifying breaches of legal regulation relating to governance and record keeping.

At this assessment, the provider remained in breach of legal regulations relating to governance and record keeping. The provider was also in breach of 2 further legal regulations relating to the management of medicines, staff recruitment, training and support. The provider’s audit process was not robust, lacked detail and had not identified shortfalls in practice. Care records and monitoring charts had not been completed fully or in enough detail, with some containing incorrect or contradictory information. Medicines had not always been managed safely. Safe recruitment processes had not been followed consistently. We were not assured the provider’s induction process was robust and supervision had not been provided in line with the providers policy.

Accidents and incidents had been documented with actions taken. Some lessons learned had been considered, though this process needed to be completed more widely. Overall, safeguarding concerns had been logged and reported to the local authority, although we identified one issue which had not been, although it met the criteria. Enough staff were deployed to meet people needs. Shortfalls were covered by existing care staff or agency carers.

Assessment processes were in place, to ensure the home was suitable and could meet people’s needs. People had access to a range of professionals to help them stay well. Monitoring of care was inconsistent, with gaps noted in charts and some processes, such as weighing people, had not been completed in line with guidance. Verbal consent was sought from people prior to delivery of care. However, the process for seeking written consent needed improving, as did the provider’s adherence to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, where people lacked capacity to provide consent.

People’s views were sought via surveys and meetings, with a system in place for feeding back actions taken. Staff told us they would feel comfortable speaking up, and there was guidance in place on how they could escalate concerns, should they not feel listened to.

In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded.