Archived: Henley House

We spoke with the two people who lived at the home, two staff and the manager and area manager. We also looked at two people's care records and other records related to the operation of the service.

People told us that they were involved in planning their care. One person told us 'Have been involved with activities' and that they had support to create a weekly activity plan.

We saw people received support that was consistent with what was written in their care plans. People told us they were happy with how they were supported.

We saw that people's behaviour management plans were better. This meant staff understood how they should respond when people were upset so as to avoid use of inappropriate physical intervention.

We saw that staff were appropriately checked before they were employed.

We saw people's views about the service were sought by the provider and one person had said the home was good, "Because it's giving you independent skills' and, 'Because my things are safe'.

We heard that people had been at risk due to use of inappropriate and unsafe methods of control that were used in response to behaviours that challenged staff. We heard that care records and risk assessment had not provided sufficient guidance for staff in how to meet people's care needs.

We spoke with the one person, a member of staff and the marketing manager. We also spoke with a senior manager after the inspection. The person that lived at the home told us that staff asked them what they thought about their lifestyle and that they liked it at the home as 'it's great'.

We saw improvements in care records since social services raised concerns. We saw that staff had received training in how to respond to behaviours that challenged them. We heard from staff that they were to ensure they identify people's needs through assessments prior to their admission to the home.

We found that clearer guidance in people's individual behaviour management plans was still needed, so that people were better protected against the risk of excessive restraint.

We saw the provider had a system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. This had not always identified areas of high risk that may impact on people's safety, such as those reported to us by social services.