Henson Court

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s needs had been thoroughly assessed before they moved into the home. Assessments considered social, health, emotional and communication needs, as well as personal preferences for their support.

Assessments were person-centered and considered peoples abilities and goals, together with their specific care needs. People’s communication needs were assessed and met to maximise the effectiveness of their care and treatment. Accessible formats were identified and used to support their involvement, for example, easy read documents and PECS (Picture Exchange Communication System).

Protected characteristics and diverse needs under the Equality Act formed part of this process. For example, people’s religious needs and preferences were captured.

People received care and support that was based on good practice and national guidance. Care plans were developed using this approach.

For example, care practices considered the principles of Right support, right care, right culture, the guidance CQC follows to assess the support of people with a learning disability and/or autism. The provider was focussed on applying the principles of STOMP. Care plans highlighted this as an outcome they wished to achieve for people, while medicine administration records confirmed that staff had been successful in its application.

Staff worked closely with healthcare professionals to ensure that guidance as followed, ensuring that people received care and support that followed clinical good practice

Staff worked collaboratively together to deliver consistent care. When people received care from a range of different staff, teams or services, it was coordinated effectively.

Staff worked effectively together to ensure continuity in people’s support. Handovers between staff, reflective practice sessions and multi-disciplinary meetings meant that information was shared promptly. One professional said, “I found the staff’s approach to be appropriate. They presented as friendly, welcoming, and helpful, while maintaining a professional manner.” Another professional said, “It feels like a very comfortable team where residents and staff work together.”

Information was shared between teams and services to ensure continuity of care, when clinical tasks were delegated or when people were referred between services. For example, each person had a detailed hospital passport. These are documents that supported people with specific needs, such as those with a learning disability, communicate their health, communication preferences, and personal needs to hospital staff. PBS grab sheets allowed clinical staff to quickly identify proactive and post active measures to support people with anxieties within a hospital environment.

People were supported to make healthy lifestyle choices to support their wellbeing.

Care planning showed that people were encouraged to make healthy nutritional choices, while respecting their own preferences for what they wished to eat. Menus were drawn up with the collaboration of people and reflected their preferences. One relative said, “I’ve also seen a little daily meal plan. They seem to have a varied menu, and he eats more. He’s open to try everything.” People’s physical wellbeing was promoted. Staff encouraged activities outside the home, and we observed staff going for walks with people in the local area.

There was a positive focus on supporting people’s emotional health through active Positive Behaviour Support. Staff were knowledgeable about what caused peoples anxieties and took steps to minimise these from occurring. People were helped to understand these needs. For example, we saw easy read documents that were used to help people understand their emotional needs. These included what people needed from staff to support them.

Staff worked with health professionals to ensure that people’s health was consistently monitored, and to respond to any immediate need. Regular health checks were arranged, while staff maintained ongoing communication with local GP services and specialists. This ensured there was focus on identifying risks to people’s health and wellbeing early. One professional said, “Health checks and action plans are up to date, and medication records are clear and accurate.” One relative said, “Yes definitely, they are good at managing that.”

The home had systems in place that monitored people’s outcomes effectively. Care plans detailed what goals people had and how staff could help them achieve these. These were regularly reviewed and monitored so that changes in need and goals were updated. Staff recorded information about people’s care consistently. This allowed them to measure outcomes in people’s health and wellbeing.

For example, staff had been successful in supporting one person to lose weight. This was achieved through considerate diet management and planned exercise. For example, walking routes were planned so that the person had access to regular fixed seating to rest before signs of fatigue occurred. One relative said, “They are well aware of his feet and stamina, and he will push himself and they realise that. They plan ahead and stop.” Staff were encouraged to use positive reinforcement so that the planned activity could be completed. One professional said, “There is evidence of thoughtful planning and flexibility in how support is delivered.”

Professionals spoke positively about the effective approaches to monitor people’s care and treatment and their outcomes. One professional said, “The continuous physical activities has had a positive impact on resident’s weight. Some have lost several stone and can go out for walks now and really enjoy the new freedom to be active.” Another professional said, “I was particularly pleased with the progress a client had made since moving to the placement.”

The provider recognised the benefits for improving people’s outcomes by involving their relatives to develop strategies to support their wellbeing. When incidents occurred, family members were consulted so that staff could improve and update their approach to supporting people.

People’s views and wishes were taken into account when their care is planned.

Where people did not have the capacity to make certain decisions, appropriate assessments had been carried out, with decisions made with those involved in the care, such as family members or health professionals, so that decisions could be made in their best interests. Management and staff adopted least restrictive practices, and clear plans were in place to use positive approaches as much as possible.

Consent was sought from people in ways that were accessible to them. For example, staff used detailed communication plans to guide them, and used communication tools to help people express their needs and choices. PECS (Picture Exchange Communication System) were used for those with limited or no verbal communication, Now and Next boards to support people in understanding the structure of their day, and objects of reference to help convey upcoming activities.

Staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. People were protected when issues around capacity had been identified. Mental capacity assessments had been conducted and recorded to determine whether they had capacity to make specific decisions about their care. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were completed appropriately and in people’s best interests with minimal restrictions. Where people had a DoLS in place, conditions to their authorisations were being met.