1 February 2022
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.
As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of COVID-19, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) practice is safe and that services are compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.
This inspection took place on 13 January 2022 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours of notice of the inspection.
1 February 2022
Thomas Henshaw Court is a residential care service which offers support for older adults. It is a spacious purpose-built facility set over three floors. Accommodation comprises of self-contained flats inclusive of a bathroom and kitchenette. The property is decorated and furnished to a high standard. There is a large dining area situated on the ground floor and a spacious lounge, which overlooks a large enclosed garden. The service is conveniently situated near to local amenities. At the time our inspection there were 43 people living at the service.
Thomas Henshaw Court is a ‘care home’. People in ‘care homes’ receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection.
The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC 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.
This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 10 September 2018. The last inspection was in June 2016 when we rated the service as 'Good.' At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. The inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since the last inspection.
We found that staff’s suitability to work with vulnerable adults at the service had been checked prior to employment. For instance, previous employer references had been sought and a criminal conviction check undertaken.
Staff had received training which equipped them with the knowledge and skills to ensure people received adequate support. All staff had completed National Vocation Qualifications (NVQs). NVQs are nationally recognised qualifications achieved through training and assessment, which help to ensure that staff are competent to carry out their job role to the required standard.
Medication was managed safely and was administered by staff who were competent to do so.
Appropriate arrangements were in place for checking the environment was safe. Health and safety audits were completed on a regular basis and accidents and incidents were reported and recorded appropriately.
Staff sought consent from people before providing support. Staff we spoke with understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to ensure people consented to the care they received. The MCA is legislation which protects the rights of people to make their own decisions.
People were involved in their care and there was evidence in their care records to show that they had been consulted about decisions. Care records contained detailed information to identify people’s requirements and preferences in relation to their care.
Appropriate risk assessments were recorded which helped to keep people safe. People where referred to external health professionals appropriately, this helped to promote people's well-being.
There was no set daily routine and people had a choice in what activities they participated in each day. We saw evidence that people’s hobbies and interests were recorded and catered for. The service had recently launched a scheme to integrate activities with other services operated by the provider in the area.
People were assigned a ‘key care worker' to support them with activities in the local community. This ensured that people participated in activities which they had a genuine interest in.
Quality assurance processes were in place to seek the views of people using the service and their relatives.
We asked people about how they thought the service was managed and their feedback was positive.