Archived: Henesy House

Updated 3 December 2016

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 registered provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 14 September 2016 and was carried out by one adult social care inspector and a specialist advisor who had expert nursing knowledge. The inspection was unannounced.

Prior to our inspection we reviewed all of the information we held about the service. Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used the information on the completed PIR to support our judgements and also gathered information we required during the inspection visit.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us

During the inspection visit we spoke with seven people who lived at the service, six visitors, five members of care staff, a member of domestic staff, a cook, an office based person who provided administrative support and the registered manager. We also spoke with a Speech and Language Therapist, a nurse who was a member of the multi-disciplinary team and a pharmacist.

We looked at all areas of the service, including people’s bedrooms, when they were able to give their permission. We looked at the kitchen, laundry, bathrooms, toilets and all communal areas. We spent time looking at six people’s care records and associated documentation. This included records relating to the management of the service; for example policies and procedures, audits and staff duty rotas. We looked at the recruitment records for four members of staff. We also observed the lunchtime experience and interactions between staff and people living at the service.

Updated 3 December 2016

Henesy House provides a care home and rehabilitation service without nursing for a maximum of 17 people. However, the service adopts a clinical approach as it is comprehensively supported by a multi-disciplinary team which includes nurses and other health professionals such as physiotherapists, GPs and speech and language therapy professionals. We found the service provided care primarily for people over the age of 65 and we discussed the registration with the registered manager on the day of inspection as they had notified us that they provided care primarily for the service user band, younger adults. They told us they would apply to change their service user band.

The service supports people with rehabilitation and to care for themselves independently before returning to their own homes following a life event such as a hospital admission or an illness. A multi-disciplinary team was on site that supported people, including rehabilitation workers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, pharmacists and nurses. There was also a GP attached to the service. People’s stays were usually for an initial period of six weeks with regular reviews.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

Medicines were safely handled to protect people. Risks were comprehensively assessed and plans were put in place to minimise these. Risk plans were subject to weekly review in consultation with people.

Staff were able to tell us what they would do to ensure people were safe and people told us they felt safe at the service. The service had sufficient suitable staff to care for people and staff were safely recruited. The environment was safe for people and monitoring checks were regularly carried out. People were protected by the infection control procedures in the service.

Staff had received training to ensure that people received care appropriate for their needs. Training was up to date across a range of relevant areas.

Staff had received up to date training in Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff understood that people should be consulted about their care and they understood the principles of the MCA and DoLS.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met. People enjoyed the meals. Specialist advice around people’s health care and rehabilitation needs was sought from the multi-disciplinary team on site and from other specialists when required, and this was followed.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. We saw staff had a good rapport with people whilst treating them with dignity and respect. Staff had knowledge and understanding of people’s needs and worked well as a team. Care plans provided detailed information about people’s individual needs and preferences. Records and observations provided evidence that people were treated in a way which encouraged them to feel valued and cared about.

People were supported to engage in daily activities they enjoyed and which were in line with their preferences and interests. Staff were responsive to people’s wishes and understood people’s personal histories and social networks so that they could support them in the way they preferred. Care plans were kept up to date and reviewed at least weekly. People were given opportunities to take part in drawing up their care plans, their reviews and to give their views which were acted upon.

People told us their complaints were responded to and the results of complaint investigations were clearly recorded. Everyone we spoke with told us that if they had concerns they were always addressed by the registered manager who responded quickly.

The service had an effective quality assurance system in place. Henesy House was well managed and staff were well supported in their role. The registered manager had a clear understanding of their role. They consulted appropriately with people who lived at the service, people who were important to them, staff and health care professionals, in order to identify required improvements and put these in place. Records around good governance were clear and accurate and led to planned improvements.