Henwick Grange

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.At our last Inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this Inspection the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 missed opportunities to always involve people in the planning of their care, but took into account people’s preferences and wishes when planning activities. Some people had personalised their rooms and families had been involved in re-decorating. One relative told us, “The management let me paint their bedroom, so it is more like their previous bedroom”. The registered manager provided us with information which demonstrated where people had enjoyed personalised activities which were meaningful to them. For example, trips to the air museum, football matches and shopping trips. The provider had recently employed an additional activities person to improve activity engagement to cover a 7-day period. We observed the staff member taking time to get to know people and engage with them. During our first visit there was limited activities provided to people. On the second day of our visit the provider had arranged for additional activities to be supplied to people by another care home. People were observed to be engaging and enjoying the sessions, however it was not confirmed if they would continue to provide further activities to people living at the home. The registered manager told us they had recently been short staffed and were now hoping to resume the activities schedule as planned.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. External healthcare professionals were involved in advising and supporting the care people received. There were regular healthcare professionals which visited the home, these included GP’s, nurses and physiotherapists, although some people attended appointments with their family as this suited their specific needs. We saw evidence of the local community visiting the home, people had enjoyed visits from local farm animals, singers and musicians.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs; however, these were not always used by staff. We observed staff were not always using communication support tools when engaging with people. For example, when people could be offered a choice of a meal or drink. People’s care plans had detailed and informative communication information which informed staff on how to communicate effectively with people. Staff also shared good knowledge of ways they could communicate with people, however this was not always consistently followed. Relatives told us they were kept updated of any changes in relation to their loved ones needs. Some care plans demonstrated people had been offered alternative communication formats when given information, for example, using a larger font. The registered manager demonstrated good knowledge of Accessible Information Standard (AIS).

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. All people and relatives we spoke with told us they knew where to raise a complaint and would speak directly with the registered or deputy manager if needed. One relative told us, ‘I haven’t raised any concerns, I don’t think I have any’. No complaints at all’. We saw where people and relatives had raised complaints, these had been investigated, and action had been taken. The provider sent out annual surveys to gather people’s feedback, the last information was gathered in April 2025. Information was then reviewed, and a response of actions was shared with people and relatives in a “you said, we embedded” document. For example, people shared they did not know who their keyworkers were, a revised list had been completed, and this had been discussed in a residents meeting. Keywork documents were in each person’s room. We identified some people had made some comments regarding staff not always knocking on people’s doors before entering and people being given a choice of what meals they would like. Despite evidence of the registered manager raising this with staff, these issues were still happening. The management team told us they would revisit these issues with staff again.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Managers and staff told us they would support people to access care, support and treatment when people needed it. This was evidenced in people’s care plans. The service worked in partnership with other professionals to meet people’s needs. Where people required annual reviews for their specific care needs, these had been facilitated by staff. Referrals were made to other external professionals when required. External health professionals told us some improvements could be made with nursing staff making more prompt clinical decisions, rather than waiting for external health professional input.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. People and their relatives reported no concerns related to discrimination or unequal experiences. All staff had completed the relevant mandatory training requirements including training for people with learning disabilities and Autistic people.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. However, these lacked detail about people’s specific funeral and end of life care choices. There were systems in place to record people’s advanced wishes. These included people’s choices regarding resuscitation in the event of requiring emergency treatment.