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.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were generally protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks and medicines were managed appropriately, although inspectors recommended continued monitoring of staffing and noted that some accident records did not fully reflect actions taken.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had access to food choices, healthcare professionals and suitable staff training. Inspectors saw inconsistent support at one lunchtime, with some people waiting for help with food or drinks.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors found that people were treated with dignity, involved in their care and supported to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and personalised. People had a varied activities programme, could maintain relationships and knew how to raise concerns or make a complaint.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The new manager was listening to people, relatives and staff and taking action on identified issues. Quality systems were in place, although staffing, communication, mealtimes and continuity of care were still being improved.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but staffing arrangements and some mealtime support needed further attention.
This was the home’s first inspection since it registered. Inspectors carried out an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 23 March 2022. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and managers, and checked care, medicine and management records.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found that people were generally safe, treated with respect, supported to make choices and given personalised care.
There was mixed feedback about staffing. Some people had to wait for help, and staff said shifts could be stressful when there were not enough permanent staff or when one senior covered two floors. Inspectors recommended that staffing levels and how staff were organised should continue to be monitored.
Inspectors also found some delays and inconsistent support during one lunchtime meal. The manager had already identified staffing, communication and mealtime issues and was taking action, but described this as work in progress.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind, friendly and respectful. Inspectors saw staff speaking politely and using people’s chosen names.
“People told us the staff treated them with dignity and compassion; they listened and responded appropriately to any requests.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care records included people’s histories, preferences and individual support needs. They were written to help staff respect choice and encourage independence.
“People's care records were person-centred and reflected their individual needs and their history, background and preferences.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
People received medicines as prescribed, including time-sensitive medicines. Staff administering medicines were trained and had regular competency checks.
“Medicines systems were well organised. People received their medicines as prescribed including those on time sensitive drugs.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered varied activities and supported people to keep in touch with relatives. Inspectors saw music, language, exercise and lawn bowls activities.
“There was a varied activities programme which promoted the social, physical and cognitive wellbeing of people.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements for preventing and managing infections, including the use of protective equipment and testing.
“We were assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Staffing consistency
needs fixingFeedback about staffing was mixed. Some people waited for help, and staff reported pressure when shifts were short or when one senior had to cover two floors.
“We recommend the provider continues to monitor and review staffing levels in the home, which includes the organisation and deployment of care staff, to ensure people's needs are met in a timely manner.” from the report
Mealtime support
needs fixingOn one floor, people who needed prompting or help with food and drinks sometimes waited while staff dealt with other tasks. The manager said further training and support were being introduced.
“However, on the first floor, people were not consistently supported by staff to eat and drink well.” from the report
Record keeping
minorInspectors found that actions taken after accidents and incidents were not always fully recorded. The management team said it would address these inconsistencies.
“Whilst actions had been taken these weren't always fully reflected in all the records seen.” from the report
Equipment checks
needs fixingOne crash mat used to reduce the risk of injury after a fall had significant wear and tear. The manager later confirmed that this had been addressed and checks had been changed.
“One crash mat had significant wear and tear.” from the report
- 01How many permanent care staff are now employed, and how often are agency staff used?
- 02How are staff organised on each shift so that one senior is not covering both floors?
- 03What changes have been made to ensure people receive prompt help with eating and drinking?
- 04How do you check that accident and incident records fully record the actions taken?
- 05How are equipment checks, including crash mats, recorded and followed up?
This was an unannounced planned comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; additional telephone feedback was gathered on 28 March 2022. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 April 2022 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
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- April 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 December 2020.
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.