Archived: Henesy House

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.

As part of this inspection we spoke with nine people who had been admitted for rehabilitation and one person's relative. We spoke with the registered manager and ten members of staff. We also spoke with NHS staff who supported people using the service including; physiotherapists, occupational therapists, assistant practitioners and the pharmacy assistant.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, relatives and staff told us. If you would like to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We spoke with nine people staying at the home who told us they had no concerns about their safety. Comments included: 'They look after us all so well.' 'I feel quite safe they make sure I use my frame when I walk.'

We were given a tour of the building and found all areas were safe, clean and hygienic. Access to the building was via an intercom system, staff admitted visitors who were asked to sign in as part of the emergency procedures so staff were aware of who was in the building. We found maintenance contracts were in place to ensure equipment was regularly serviced and safe to use.

Is the service effective?

We looked at people's care plans and saw needs assessments had been carried out by a team of health and social care professionals before people were admitted. This was to make sure it was the most appropriate option for the person.

The people we spoke with told us they received the care and support they required. We spent time observing the interactions between staff and the people they were caring for.

We saw that staff training and staff supervision was provided and staff told us they felt well supported by the registered manager. This showed staff employed to work in the home had the appropriate skills, knowledge and support to meet people's needs.

Is the service caring?

Each person had a needs assessment carried out by a team of health and social care professionals before they were admitted to the home. This was to make sure the staff at the home could meet their rehabilitation and care needs.

Our observations and the comments we received showed us that staff were caring. We heard staff encouraging people to make choices and people were given time to make their decisions.

We observed staff approaching people with patience, respect and compassion. Staff supported and encouraged people to be as independent as possible and spent time interacting with people. We spoke with people staying at the home and they told us: 'They (staff) are always kind and polite.'

One person's relative said: 'I am happy with the care given to (my relative) the staff are really nice.' 'They (staff) have been brilliant, perfect.'

Is the service responsive?

We looked at care plans and saw they had been reviewed on a regular basis and any changes recorded so that staff had the most up to date information.

Care plans contained a record of people's preferences and interests so that these could be respected by staff. Relatives told us that staff members consulted their family member and encouraged them to make their own decisions. People received the individual support they needed and had access to a range of planned activities as part of their rehabilitation.

Is the service well led?

There was a manager who had been in post for three years and was registered with the Care Quality Commission. We saw evidence that staff received regular supervision and attended regular staff meetings. We spoke with staff who told us they felt listened to when they made a suggestion or raised their concerns. They told us that the manager was approachable and that the service was well organised.

The records we looked at and our observations confirmed equipment was well maintained and serviced at regular intervals. This was to make sure people were not placed at unnecessary risk.

The registered manager told us a satisfaction survey was sent to people on discharge. We saw the most recently completed surveys gave positive comments about the staff and the care and support people received during their stay at the home.

We saw there was a system of audits in place to monitor the quality of service that included; medication audits, incidents and accidents and the environment.