CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Henson Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but safety reporting and management oversight failures put people at risk.
This was the first inspection since the home registered. Inspectors visited unannounced on 20 and 23 June 2022. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and social care professionals, and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
Inspectors found good care in several areas. Staff understood people's communication needs and supported choice, independence, activities, healthcare and relationships. People were treated kindly and with respect. The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive.
There were important safety and management weaknesses. Some incidents, including unexplained bruising and injuries, were not always investigated or reported to the local authority and CQC. Relatives had not always been kept informed. The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led, with breaches of Regulations 13 and 17.
Kind and respectful care
Staff were calm, attentive and compassionate. They understood people's emotions, privacy, dignity and individual support needs.
“People received kind and compassionate care from staff who used positive, respectful language which people understood and responded well to.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, learn skills and take part in meaningful activities. Staff used plans and communication tools to help people have control over their lives.
“People experienced choice and control over their lives and staff encouraged them to achieve their own levels of maximum independence.” from the report
Understanding communication needs
Staff used Makaton, pictures, symbols, objects, sounds and body language to communicate with people. Support plans recorded people's preferred methods.
“People's diverse communication methods were understood, and staff were proactive in the way they actively involved people in all decisions about their support.” from the report
Support for health and activities
People were supported to attend healthcare appointments, education, social events and activities linked to their interests. Medicines were reviewed and reduced for some people where appropriate.
“The service ensured that people were provided with joined-up support so they could travel, access health centres or employment opportunities and social events.” from the report
Incidents were not always managed safely
seriousThe provider could not show that all incidents were investigated promptly or reported to safeguarding services and CQC. This included unexplained bruising and incidents where people were injured.
“The provider could not be assured they had safely managed a potential risk of harm to the person.” from the report
Weak oversight and governance
seriousManagement checks did not always identify problems with incidents, records and risks. Inspectors said this placed people at risk of harm.
“The provider had failed to ensure monitoring systems and processes to assess and improve the quality and safety of the service always operated effectively.” from the report
Communication with relatives was inconsistent
needs fixingRelatives said they had not always received enough information about how their family members were settling in. Communication had improved since the new manager joined.
“The provider had not always ensured relatives had enough information regarding how their loved ones were settling in.” from the report
- 01What specific changes have been made to ensure every incident is investigated promptly and reported to the local authority and CQC when required?
- 02How will you show that unexplained injuries or bruising are identified, investigated and discussed with relatives?
- 03What checks now make sure care records, incident records and safeguarding notifications are complete and reviewed by managers?
- 04How are you reducing staff turnover and making sure all staff have the skills to support people with autism and distress?
- 05How will relatives receive regular updates about their family member's wellbeing, activities and any concerns?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe; there were no previous ratings to carry over. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 August 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 Henson Court
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- August 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 June 2021.
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 West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.