CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Henley House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Henley House was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 28 January 2021. Inspectors looked at how the home prepared for and managed infection prevention and control during the pandemic.
Inspectors found that staff, managers and visitors used protective equipment correctly. The home had testing, visitor checks, hand sanitiser, cleaning arrangements and updated infection control procedures.
Inspectors were assured that people were protected from infection, including through safe admissions, social distancing, shielding and plans for managing outbreaks. The home was clean and there were enough staff to maintain support.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not provide an overall quality rating or ratings for the other four areas that CQC usually considers.
PPE and hygiene
Staff, managers and visitors were using PPE correctly. Inspectors also found good arrangements for disposing of PPE and other waste.
“Staff, management and visitors were using personal protective equipment (PPE) correctly and there were procedures in place around the use of PPE.” from the report
Testing and visitor checks
The home tested staff weekly and residents at least every 28 days. Visitors had their temperatures checked and entry was refused if the reading was outside the permitted range.
“The provider had processes to minimise the risk to people, staff and visitors from catching and spreading infection.” from the report
Clean environment and staffing
The home was clean and hygienic, with a full-time cleaner and extra staff available if needed. Inspectors found enough staff to maintain support and safeguards during a shortage.
“The home was clean and hygienic. A designated full-time cleaner was in post and additional staff could be used if this was required.” from the report
Keeping people connected
The home used social media and tablets to support people's mental wellbeing and contact with relatives and friends. It had also created an outdoor visiting pod.
“People's mental wellbeing had been promoted by innovative use of social media and electronic tablets so people could contact their relatives and friends.” from the report
Activities programme was pending
minorThe activities coordinator was away at the time of the inspection. The manager said a programme would be introduced shortly, so families may wish to check whether this happened.
“At the time of inspection, the home's activities coordinator was away from the home but the registered manager said a programme of activities was to be introduced shortly” from the report
- 01What activities programme is now in place, and how are residents encouraged to take part?
- 02How often are residents and staff currently tested for infections?
- 03What visiting arrangements are now available, and is the visiting pod still used?
- 04How does the home manage a suspected or confirmed infection outbreak?
- 05How are PPE supplies, use and disposal checked?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 February 2021 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.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some mixed views about meals and activities.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 23 July 2019. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, managers and care staff. They reviewed care records, staff recruitment files, policies and other records, and checked the safety of the building.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, medicines were managed safely, staff were safely recruited and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Care was tailored to people's needs and preferences. Staff worked with health and social care professionals, supported people's choices and provided activities, including special events and entertainment.
There were some mixed views about the variety of lunchtime meals and activities. The manager said they would seek further feedback about meals and appoint a new activities coordinator. The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff had safeguarding training and understood what to do if abuse was suspected.
“People were protected from abuse and other types of harm.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines records were accurate and showed people received medicines as prescribed. Recruitment checks were robust and staffing levels were considered sufficient.
“Records showed staff were up to date with medicines training.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with compassion, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well and supported them to make everyday choices.
“We observed positive interactions between people, relatives and staff.” from the report
Person-centred support
Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and communication requirements. Relatives were involved where appropriate.
“Care planning was person-centred and reflected people's needs.” from the report
Good leadership and improvement
Managers were approachable and used meetings, feedback and quality checks to identify and act on issues.
“There was effective management oversight in the service.” from the report
End of life support
The home had an end of life policy and trained staff. It worked with relatives and health professionals to plan this support.
“The service had a comprehensive policy around end of life care.” from the report
Lunchtime meal variety
minorSome people were unhappy with the quality and variation of lunchtime meals. The manager said a residents' meeting would be arranged to gather more feedback.
“There was however some mixed feedback about the quality and variation of lunch-time meals.” from the report
Activities were not always varied
minorOne person said activities were irregular and very similar. The activities coordinator was due to leave, and a replacement was expected to arrange a fuller programme.
“There was one person who provided a mixed view about the quality of the activities at the home saying they were irregular and very similar.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to the variety and quality of lunchtime meals since the inspection?
- 02Who now organises activities, and how do you make sure they are regular and varied?
- 03How would you support my relative's specific health needs and involve outside health professionals?
- 04How would you involve my relative and our family in care planning and reviews?
- 05What support could you provide for end of life care if my relative needed it?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was Good, published on 25 July 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 August 2019 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 Henley House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015Inspected but not ratedSafe: Good
- January 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.