Henleigh Hall

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 people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 63 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People's needs were assessed in their care plans, but care was not always delivered in line with these assessments. The transition to a new electronic care planning system meant care plans needed to be updated and reviewed. This had not taken place for everyone’s care plans so there were examples of inconsistent information.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Care records for people who were at risk of weight loss were not always updated with information about their nutrition and hydration. One person had only drunk half of their hydration target over the previous 24 hours. The kitchen was well organised, and the catering team had good knowledge about preparation of specialised diets and fortified drinks. However, people’s feedback about the meals was not always positive. One person told us, “The food is not very imaginative. It’s also quite salty. It is a shame we didn’t get pancakes on pancake day.” Another person said, “The meals used to be much better, it changed about 2 years ago. I think the food is pretty unappetising.” On the day of our site visit there was a relatives and residents meeting with the registered manager. No one raised their issues at the meeting when they had an opportunity to speak to the catering team. We shared people’s feedback with the provider.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. Members of staff participated in daily shift meetings called ‘huddles’ where updates about people’s care and support needs were discussed. Handover meetings between day shift and night shift staff took place to ensure continuity of care and support.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People were supported to participate in chair-based exercise sessions which were led by the activities co-ordinator. People were referred to health professionals appropriately and their health needs were reviewed by a GP who visited the care home.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. People with specific health conditions were seen by specialist clinical teams to ensure their care needs were being met and to monitor and review any changes. One person we spoke with felt their needs had changed which was a concern to them. We spoke to the registered manager who informed us the person had been seen by the specialist community nurse who led on his specialist care. The registered manager informed us they had not been made aware in any changes in needs.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. Some people’s mental capacity to make informed decisions was not always recorded and reflected in their care plans and, subsequently, decisions made in their best interest were not always recorded. For example, where people had bedrails or required a lap belt for their wheelchair, there was no record of making these decisions in people’s best interest or an assessment of their capacity so they could understand why these restrictions were in place.