You are here

Archived: Hennel Lane Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 4 May 2016

The inspection took place on 5 February 2016 and was unannounced. At our previous inspection in November 2013 we found that the provider was meeting the regulations in relation to the outcomes we inspected.

Hennel Lane is a care home for people with learning disabilities and complex support needs. It is provided by Scope which is a national charity providing a range of services for children and adults with disabilities. The service at Hennel Lane is provided in a large detached house in a residential area of Preston. It offers a transition service from children to adult’s services for up to five young people.

The home has 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.

The manager was available throughout the inspection and engaged positively with the inspection process. The manager was friendly and approachable; she operated an open door policy for people using the service, staff and visitors.

We found that care was provided by a long term staff group in an environment which was friendly and homely.

People's consent was gained before any care was provided and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act were met.

The relationships we saw were caring, respectful and dignified and the atmosphere was one of calm and comfort. Everyone in the service looked relaxed and comfortable with each other and with all of the staff.

Staff members had developed good relationships with people living at the home and care plans clearly identified people’s needs, which ensured people received the care they wanted in the way they preferred.

Staff knew about the need to safeguard people and were provided with the right information they needed to do this. They knew what to do if they had a concern. There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of the people who lived in the home.

The home was well-decorated and maintained and adapted where required. People had their own bedrooms which they could personalise as they wished.

We spent time with the people who used the service all who appeared relaxed and comfortable within their home environment. People were not always able to communicate verbally with us because of their complex needs. However they expressed themselves in other ways such as by gesture or expression. We talked with five staff members as well as the registered manager.

We undertook a limited amount of direct observation at Hennel Lane. This was to try and minimise any possible anxiety for people, and to ensure that support and daily activities went ahead as planned.

Staff were observed to be mindful and promoted a calm environment. They spoke quietly to people and were observed supporting people with tasks in a calm and respectful way. Staff kept an appropriate distance from people who may have felt anxious if someone was too close to them. People were asked questions in a way that made sure they were helped to understand and were able to respond in a way that reflected their rights and choices.

We spoke with one person who lived at Hennel Lane and he told us that is was good and that he liked the staff the TV and the food.

We spoke to the relatives of some people who lived at Hennel Lane. They told us that they were happy with the care that their relatives received. They told us that staff were kind, caring and compassionate and that they provided the people who lived at Hennel Lane with emotional warmth.

We looked at records including four care files as well as three staff files and audit reports.

We looked around the building and facilities and by invitation, looked in some people’s bedrooms.

Inspection areas



Updated 4 May 2016

The service was safe.

There was sufficient and suitably qualified staff to meet the needs of the people living at the home.

Risks to people's health and wellbeing were assessed, managed and reviewed.

The provider used safe recruitment practices.

People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.



Updated 4 May 2016

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff that had appropriate skills and knowledge to meet their needs and staff received regular supervision, training and appraisals of their performance.

Staff had an awareness of the need for consent and understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were being applied appropriately to people within the home.

People could make choices about their food and drink, they were provided with support where necessary.

People had access to health care professionals to ensure they received effective care and treatment.



Updated 4 May 2016

The service was caring

People told us that the staff were kind and caring. We observed that staff treated people in a compassionate manner.

People were treated with dignity and respect.

Staff respected people’s wishes and preferences and people were involved in decisions about their care.



Updated 4 May 2016

The service was responsive.

People received care in accordance with their identified needs and wishes.

There was a complaints system in place and people felt able to raise any concerns with staff.

People were supported to engage in a range of activities that met their needs and reflected their interests.



Updated 4 May 2016

The service was well-led.

People knew the registered manager and said she had an open door policy so that people could talk to her at any time.

The manager had good knowledge and understanding of the needs of the people who lived at the home. People were asked for their views of the quality of the care and changes were made in response.

The home had effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor and make any improvements.