You are here

Henshaws Society for Blind People - 3 Red Admiral Court Gateshead Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 5 January 2016

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 9 December 2015.

We last inspected Henshaws Society for Blind People-3, Red Admiral Court in September 2013. At that inspection we found the service was meeting all the legal requirements in force at the time.

3, Red Admiral Court provides accommodation and personal care for up to six people with visual impairments, who may also have physical and learning disabilities. Nursing care is not provided.

A registered manager was in place. 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.

People were protected as staff had received training about safeguarding and knew how to respond to any allegation of abuse. Staff were aware of the whistle blowing procedure which was in place to report concerns and poor practice. When new staff were appointed thorough vetting checks were carried out to make sure they were suitable to work with people who needed care and support.

People told us they felt safe. They were relaxed and appeared comfortable with the staff who supported them. There were enough staff available to provide individual care and support to each person. People received their medicines in a safe and timely way.

Staff had received training and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Best Interest Decision Making, when people were unable to make decisions themselves. There were other opportunities for staff to receive training to meet people’s care needs.

People who used the service had food and drink to meet their needs. People were assisted by staff to plan their menu, shop for the ingredients and cook their own food. Other people received meals that had been cooked by staff.

People were supported to maintain some control in their lives. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care. The records gave detailed instructions to staff to help people learn new skills and become more independent.

People had access to health care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. Staff followed advice given by professionals to make sure people received the treatment they needed.

People were provided with opportunities to follow their interests and hobbies and they were introduced to new activities. They were supported to contribute and to be part of the local community.

Staff knew the people they were supporting well and we observed that care was provided with patience and kindness and people’s privacy and dignity were respected.

A complaints procedure was available. People we spoke with said they knew how to complain but they hadn’t needed to.

People had the opportunity to give their views about the service. There was consultation with people and family members and their views were used to improve the service. The provider undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided.

Inspection areas



Updated 5 January 2016

The service was safe.

People were kept safe as systems were in place to ensure their safety and well-being at all times. People were supported to manage and receive their medicines in a safe way.

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm as staff had received training with regard to safeguarding. Staff said they would be able to identify any instances of possible abuse and would report it if it occurred.

People were supported to take acceptable risks such as to assist in the kitchen with meal preparation and help with domestic tasks.

There were enough staff employed to provide a supportive and reliable service to each person. They were appropriately checked before they started employment.



Updated 5 January 2016

The service was effective.

Staff had a good understanding and knowledge of people’s care and support needs.

People’s rights were protected because there was evidence of best interest decision making when decisions were made on behalf of people. This occurred when people were unable to give their own consent to their care and treatment.

People were supported to eat and drink according to their plan of care.

People received appropriate health and social care as other professionals were involved to assist staff to make sure people’s care and treatment needs were met.



Updated 5 January 2016

The service was caring.

People we spoke with said staff were kind and caring and they were complimentary about the care and support staff provided.

A range of information and support was provided to help promote people’s independence and to be involved in daily decision making.

People’s rights to privacy and dignity were respected and staff were patient and interacted well with people.

People were supported to maintain contact with their friends and relatives.

Staff supported people to access an advocate if the person had no family involvement. Advocates can represent the views of people who are not able express their wishes.



Updated 5 January 2016

The service was responsive.

People received support in the way they wanted and needed because staff had detailed guidance about how to deliver people’s care.

People were supported to live a fulfilled life, to contribute and be part of the local community. They were encouraged to take part in new activities and widen their hobbies and interests.

People told us they knew how to complain if they needed to.



Updated 5 January 2016

The service was well-led.

A registered manager was in place who encouraged an ethos of involvement amongst staff and people who used the service.

Communication was effective and staff and people who used the service told us they were listened to.

Staff said they felt well supported and were aware of their rights and their responsibility to share any concerns about the care provided.

The registered manager monitored the quality of the service and introduced any improvements to ensure that people received safe care that met their needs.