CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Henshaws Specialist College
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that young people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, with suitable risk assessments, staffing, recruitment and medicines arrangements. Some windows did not meet safety standards, and inspectors discussed providing an emergency summary sheet.
- Effective?
- Good
- Assessments were detailed and involved different professionals. Staff were trained and supported young people with eating, drinking, healthcare, communication and decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- Young people had warm relationships with staff and were treated with dignity and respect. Staff involved them and their relatives in care planning and encouraged independence.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Support was highly personalised and flexible. Young people were helped to take part in meaningful activities, communicate in ways that suited them and prepare for life after college.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had effective systems to monitor care, manage risks and improve the service. Staff and managers shared clear values focused on confidence, independence and achievement.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Good, with Outstanding responsiveness; inspectors found caring, personalised support and improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection over three days in January 2020. Inspectors looked at the residential accommodation, healthcare provision and care and support outside the educational curriculum. They spoke with young people, staff and relatives, observed care and checked records.
The inspectors found that young people were safe, treated with kindness and supported by trained staff. Care was highly personalised. Young people were helped to build confidence, become more independent and take part in activities such as sailing, kayaking and rock climbing.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and well-led improved from Requires Improvement to Good. Responsive improved from Good to Outstanding. Effective and Caring remained Good. The inspection also included healthcare provision for the first time after the provider registered to provide nursing care.
Personalised support
Care was planned around each young person's abilities, communication needs, health needs and preferences. Relatives said staff understood their family members well.
“Young people received highly personalised care.” from the report
Activities and independence
Young people were supported to try new experiences and achieve goals that had previously been difficult. Activities helped build confidence, self-esteem and a sense of achievement.
“Young people with very complex needs had achieved goals for the first time, including sailing, kayaking and rock climbing.” from the report
Communication support
Staff used accessible information, assistive technology and knowledge of non-verbal communication to help young people express themselves and take part in decisions.
“Staff made every effort to help young people communicate effectively.” from the report
Transition planning
The Next Steps programme gave each young person a personalised plan for moving on from college. Some young people were working towards supported internships and paid employment.
“Excellent support was in place to assist young people transition from college.” from the report
Caring staff
Inspectors and relatives described warm, respectful relationships. Staff promoted dignity, choice and independence in everyday activities.
“Interactions between young people and staff were warm and cheerful.” from the report
Window safety
needs fixingThe provider had identified that some windows did not meet safety standards. The manager later confirmed timescales for bringing all windows in line with published health and safety guidance.
“The provider had identified some windows did not meet safety standards.” from the report
Emergency information
minorInspectors discussed introducing a summary sheet for all students so emergency services could access key information quickly. The principal agreed to introduce this.
“We discussed introducing a summary sheet for all students, which could be made available to emergency services.” from the report
Infection-control documentation
minorInspectors discussed producing an annual infection-control statement. The clinical lead agreed to do this.
“We discussed with the clinical lead also producing an annual statement on infection control, which they agreed to do.” from the report
- 01Have all windows that did not meet safety standards now been brought in line with health and safety guidance?
- 02Has the emergency summary sheet for students been introduced, and what information does it contain?
- 03Has the annual infection-control statement been produced, and how are infection-control checks followed up?
- 04How would you support my relative to communicate choices if they do not use speech?
- 05What activities and transition plans would be available to help my relative develop independence and prepare for life after college?
This was an unannounced planned inspection of the residential accommodation, healthcare provision and care and support outside the educational curriculum, covering all five CQC questions; healthcare provision was inspected for the first time. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 2020 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, January 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective and responsive support, but safety systems and leadership checks were not yet reliable.
Two inspectors visited on 27 and 28 November 2018. They spoke with nine young people, four relatives, 15 staff and three health professionals. They checked care files, medicines records, staff records, audits, equipment and the building.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. Staff numbers, safeguarding, medicines, care planning and support for independence were generally good. Young people said they liked the home, made friends and were listened to.
However, risk assessments were still being developed and were not always fully used. Quality checks had missed some problems, including the support and training needed to use the new risk systems. The overall rating stayed Requires Improvement, for the second inspection in a row, because the home had not yet shown sustained improvement.
Kind and respectful staff
Young people appeared comfortable with staff, who understood different ways of communicating and treated people with dignity.
“Staff treated young people with respect and were very warm, approachable and caring.” from the report
Support for independence
Staff helped young people build skills, confidence and independence in daily life.
“Staff promoted people's independence.” from the report
Accessible communication
The home used pictorial care plans, symbols, eye-gaze systems, sign language and other communication methods to help young people express choices.
“A wide range of communication methods were used.” from the report
Good medicines arrangements
Medicines were audited regularly and staff training was continuing. Problems found through audits were followed up.
“Medicines were managed safely. Audits were being undertaken regularly and medicines training was ongoing.” from the report
Community activities
Young people were supported to take part in work placements, volunteering, local activities and trips.
“Young people were actively encouraged to be part of the community through supported internships, volunteering or out and about using local transport and doing activities.” from the report
Risk assessments not fully embedded
seriousNew risk assessment tools were in place but staff practice was still developing. The report identified a risk that safety measures might not always guide staff clearly.
“We found these were at an early stage of development and had yet to be fully embedded into staff practice.” from the report
Management checks missed issues
needs fixingQuality assurance systems had not yet been fully established. Checks did not identify all the extra support and training staff needed to use the new risk processes.
“Quality assurance processes however were not yet fully established.” from the report
Limited evening food choices
minorEvening meals relied more on convenience foods because of the quick changeover before activities. Inspectors asked the home to consider how young people could have more varied and healthier choices.
“We found people's choices in the evening were more limited with a reliance on convenience foods owing to the quick turnaround before evening activities.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every young person's risk assessment is current and followed by all staff?
- 02What safety measures are recorded for young people who may bathe independently, including those with epilepsy?
- 03How do managers check that the new risk assessment processes are working in practice?
- 04How often do staff receive supervision and training, and how do you check that any gaps are put right?
- 05What evening and weekend meal choices are now available, and how are young people's choices recorded?
This was a planned inspection of the care home covering all five CQC questions, following a previous Requires Improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 January 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 Henshaws Specialist College
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- January 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 December 2010.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.