You are here

Archived: Hennel Lane Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 5 February 2016

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 8 November 2013

During a routine inspection

There were four people living at Hennel Lane when we visited. The registered manager told us that this was because it was important that any new person who came to live there would fit in well with the other people, in order to avoid any undue distress and anxiety.

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 to one person at Hennel Lane and he told us that is was good and that he liked the food.

We spoke to the relatives of some people at Hennel Lane. They told us that they were happy with the care that their relatives received.

One relative said; "Some of the staff have known (our loved one) for a very long time, so they know what (they are) likely to need. Probably more so than us!"

Another relative said; "They have always listened. l am astounded how much effort they put in for (my relative). Without all that effort I don't know where we would be."

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

The manager of the service had completed a review of the medicines policies, procedures and systems and made several changes as a result.

A new pharmacy service was in place.

Policies, procedures and new guidance about the use of ‘as required’ medicines and homely remedies had been re-issued to all staff members.

Checks had been made with each person’s GP about the safe use of homely remedies.

Individual information had been updated about the use of ‘as required’ medicines for each person living at the home.

The procedure for checking medicine stocks had been reviewed.

Inspection carried out on 13 December 2012

During a routine inspection

At the start of our visit the people living at Hennel Lane were busy getting ready to go out for various community activities. On returning later in the day people were spending private time in their rooms or otherwise occupied. Because of this we only had brief interactions and discussions with people about the service they receive. However we were able to talk at more length with their relatives. A relative said “x is happy here and we are very happy with his placement.”

We saw staff interacting with people in positive and respectful ways. People were given choices about what they wanted to do. People were able to have individual routines and be involved in activities of their choice with input from one to one staffing. A relative said “We have confidence in the staff, we definitely think they treat x with dignity and respect.”

We found personalised assessments and support plans were in place. Relatives told us they were able to be involved in support planning and reviews. We found that people were cared for by staff who were supported to provide care and support safely and to an appropriate standard. A relative told us “Staff know what they are doing, they know x and her needs really well.”

We found that people were not fully protected against the risks associated with medicines and we have asked the provider to take action about this.

We found that the provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

Inspection carried out on 1 June 2012

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

During this follow up inspection we spoke to staff at the home but did not speak directly with any of the young adults using the service. As the inspection was unannounced, three of the five young adults resident at Hennel Lane were out with staff and another person was on a home visit. Whilst there was one young adult being supported by two staff in the home for part of the inspection visit, we decided that it would have been potentially disruptive to the care the young adult was receiving to interrupt that support by speaking to them. From our observations this young adult was being appropriately cared for and supported by the staff in the home.

Inspection carried out on 15 December 2011

During a themed inspection looking at Learning Disability Services

We visited Hennel Lane, which is a care home providing a transition service from children’s to adult services for young people with learning disabilities and complex support needs.

There were four young people living at Hennel Lane when we visited. We met all four of the young people. Most had some communication difficulties but indicated that they like the staff and some young people were willing to be involved in discussions about the activities they did.

Relatives of most of the young people were pleased with the care provided and said that staff were kind and helpful to their family member and most felt that staff supported their family member well.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)