Henson Court

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 received person centred care that focussed on their individual needs and preferences. Care plans reflected this practice and included physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

People and their relatives were involved in care planning and made shared decisions about their care and treatment. People were supported to make decisions about their routines and activities. Communication aids and good staff practice supported them to do this. Leaders and staff took a collaborative approach that focussed on people’s quality of life and outcomes that were evidence based.

Relatives and professionals spoke positively about the home’s person-centred approach. One relative said, “They seem very individualised with the support.” One professional said, “The service appears to provide care in a person-centred and responsive way. Staff demonstrate good knowledge of individuals’ needs and preferences, The overall approach promotes dignity, independence, and safety.” Another professional said, “(The manager) and staff knew each person and their needs very well as well as the needs of their family.”

People experienced care that had continuity and consistency. Staff worked collaboratively with partners in care to ensure this.

Staff worked consistently on people’s assessed needs and followed guidance and information provided by health and social care partners. The home had links with GP, clinicians and local authority partners. One professional said, “Communication has generally been clear and timely, and the service has shown a willingness to collaborate, share information appropriately, and work towards shared goals for the individuals they support.”

People’s transitions into the home were completed constructively and sensitively to ensure that people received a safe and effective move to their new home. Staff worked with relatives to plan care, improve support and change practice, if needed, when things went wrong.

People received information in a way they understood and were accessible to them.

People’s communication needs had been comprehensively assessed, and staff had a good understanding of the needs they supported. Easy read documents were used to support people understand their own anxieties and to inform staff how they wished to be supported. 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.

The provider stated in their information return to CQC, “At Henson Court, we are fully committed to meeting the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and ensuring that all individuals, including the people we support, their families, and staff, can access information in a way that meets their communication needs.” One professional said, “The documentation is well-organised and accessible, with evidence of person-centred planning and communication aids in use.”

Information about people that was collected and shared met data protection legislation requirements. Staff received GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) training. Information was stored securely within the site office in locked cabinets, while electronic information was protected within password protected care systems.

People at the home were actively listened to and their views shaped the support they received. Our observations and feedback supported this.

People and their relatives were supported to provide feedback about their care and told us they felt confident that any issues would be addressed promptly. Communication with families was consistent, and relatives told us of the positive involvement in their support. One relative said, “They’ve spent a lot of time looking listening and learning and I’ve been involved as well.”

Complaints were dealt with professionally and in accordance with the providers complaints policy. Staff took concerns seriously. One complaint viewed showed that concerns and their potential impact were acknowledged. Meetings were arranged where people’s care support was explained and the complainants’ concerns discussed. The provider said, “The feedback helped us reflect on the importance of continued community engagement and visibility.”

People could access care, treatment and support when they need to and in a way that worked for them, which promoted equality, removed barriers or delays and protected their rights.

People’s care plans were developed collaboratively with relatives, staff and professionals. Detail in each care plan was detailed and consistent for each person. People received care and support in a timely way, while adjustments were made for each individual to ensure that health and external support was accessible.

Physical premises and equipment were accessible. People were given support to overcome barriers to ensure equal access through consistent approach to meeting people’s individual communication needs. Observations of environment were positive with people having access to a spacious, secure environment.

People’s care, treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers or delays and protected their rights.

Leaders and staff were alert to the potential inequality and discrimination that could disadvantage people living with a learning disability and/or autism. People’s care planning was consistent, and the provider sought to provide person-centred care that acknowledged people’s differences and complex needs.

The home ensured that opportunities were sought for each person, and as much as possible, that they were included in activities and events. One professional said, “Support was very person centred, and paperwork was up to date. (The manager) has clear goals what (they) want to change in the home to ensure residents and staff work well together and the environment is positive for everyone.”

The provider had considered and assessed people’s advanced wishes for the future, when this was appropriate.

Senior leaders acknowledged the challenges and sensitivity in gaining people’s views about their advanced wishes. One senior leader said, “As part of our process when someone is moving into service, we have discussions with families around any end of life wishes, due to the age of people we support families are always reluctant to discuss or have this set up.”

Approaches to end-of-life support, and gathering information to inform any potential support, had been recently reviewed by the provider. Mental capacity assessments had been completed to determine people’s understanding about end-of-life support, while families had been consulted. One senior leader said, “A lot of relatives have already made their own planning. We are looking into specific end of life training that we can tap into.”