We carried out a review of the data available to us about Henley Care Limited on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Henley Care Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
At our last inspection we rated the service 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. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
People felt safe when being supported by the service. Medicines were managed safely. Where risks were identified there were plans in place to manage those risks. There were sufficient staff to ensure people’s needs were met.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. Staff competencies were checked to ensure staff were able to meet people’s needs safely.
Where people required support with eating and drinking this was provided to ensure dietary needs were met.
The service worked closely with health and social care professionals to ensure people had access to appropriate support.
People were supported by caring staff who treated them with dignity and respect. People were involved in the development of their care plans and felt involved in all aspects of their care.
People received person-centred care and care plans reflected how people wished their care needs to be met.
There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. The management team had plans to improve the effectiveness of the quality assurance systems to enable them to monitor and improve the service.
Henley Care Limited is a domiciliary care service providing support for people living in their own homes. At the time of our inspection there were 25 people using the service.
The service had a registered manager in post. 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 registered manager promoted a caring culture that put people at the centre of all the service did. People, their representatives and staff were positive about the registered manager and the quality of care provided. The registered manager had systems in place to gather feedback about the service. Feedback was used to monitor and improve the quality of the service.
Staff were kind and caring. Staff encouraged people to maintain their independence and made sure people were involved in decisions about every aspect of their care.
Care plans were personalised and identified people's physical, emotional, social and cultural needs. People had support to meet their nutritional needs and were supported to access health professionals when needed.
Staff had completed training in safeguarding vulnerable people and were confident to identify and report concerns. Where risks to people were identified there were plans in place to manage the risk. People's medicines were managed safely.
There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs. Staff arrived on time and there were no reported missed visits. There were systems in place to ensure all care visits were scheduled and carried out. People benefitted from consistent staff.
People were supported in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The registered manger had a clear understanding of their responsibilities in relation to MCA.
Staff had sufficient training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs. Staff felt supported by the management team.
Mental capacity assessments were not updated to show whether there had been changes in people's capacity to make specific decisions. Decisions were made on behalf of people without their involvement. We set a compliance action for the provider to improve practice.
The provider sent us an action plan. This outlined they intended to be compliant by 31 October 2014. We returned to the service on the 29 January 2015 to check if improvements had been made.
We did not speak with people on this visit because the areas of concern was centred on records. We reviewed four care plans and spoke with the registered manager.
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed and the records we looked at. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
The service was safe.
People were protected from the risk of unsafe or inappropriate care because care records showed how identified risks were managed and reviewed.
Is the service effective?
The service was effective.
People were supported by a service that obtained their consent in line with legislation and guidance. Staff undertook relevant training that ensured people were enabled to be involved in decisions that affected them.
Is the service safe?
Is the service effective?
Is the service caring?
Is the service responsive?
Is the service well-led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The detailed evidence supporting our summary can be read in our full report.
Is the service safe?
The service was not safe.
We looked at completed 'service user risk assessment' forms. These detailed people's personal details such as date of birth and next of kin, the health professional involved in their care and the identified risk. One person had been assessed at high risk of falling and although this was evident on their initial service user risk assessment, it was not evident on some of the updated risk assessments. We noted the person had experienced further falls. This meant the service failed to ensure identified risks were evident when reviews of risk were updated.
People told us they felt safe and knew what to do if they had concerns. We heard comments such as, 'I went away for a small break and didn't worry about whether X was going to be looked after. If I had any concerns I would speak with the manager' and 'If I had concerns, I would report it immediately to the office.' This showed people who used the service were aware of how to raise concerns of abuse.
Is the service effective?
The service was not effective.
We saw one person had been assessed as having capacity to make specific decisions when they joined the service. However after a period of time a situation arose where a specific decision had to be made regarding the person. We saw no evidence of the person being involved in the decision and no further mental capacity assessment to show the person lacked capacity to make the decision. This meant people could not be confident their human rights would be respected and taken into account.
One person told us, 'The manager visited and carried out an assessment. It was a very good interview; all the questions they asked were relevant.' This helped the service to develop a plan of care based upon the care needs identified.
Staff received appropriate professional development. Staff spoke positively about their induction experience. One staff commented, 'Some of the courses I attended were Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), safeguarding adults, food and hygiene and fire safety. It was very helpful as it showed me how to look after my clients and increased my knowledge.' This showed staff acquired skills and qualifications that were relevant to the work they undertook.
Is it caring?
The service is caring.
People spoke positively about the care they received. We heard various comments such as, 'The care is not rushed' and 'I find them (staff) absolutely excellent', and 'I definitely feel safe with the care delivered. They are always very caring' and 'They are very good for time keeping' and 'The carers I have always makes me laugh.' This showed people were supported by caring staff.
Is it responsive?
The service is responsive.
One relative commented, 'I do have a look at the care plan and it is reflective of X's needs' and another person told us, 'I have read my care plan and it accurately reflects the care they have given. When carrying out personal care staff knows exactly what part of my body I like to wash.' This meant the delivery of care was centred on people's individual needs and reflected their preferences.
Is it well-led?
The service is well-led.
We saw unannounced spot checks were undertaken to ensure staff carried out their roles in line with the service's policies and procedures. The manager told us spot checks were carried out regularly when a new staff member joined the service or if concerns were raised about staff. Spot check records reviewed showed areas of work discussed and actions taken when concerns were identified. This meant the service had systems in place to monitor, assess and review staff competency.
People told us staff always asked their permission before providing care or treatment. Staff understood the importance of gaining people's consent to care provision. One care worker said 'I ask [people] what they want, if they agree to my help.'
We saw people's care and treatment needs were assessed and reviewed regularly. Liaison with multi-disciplinary teams and family ensured people's initial and current needs were met safely. One relative said discussion of care was 'An ongoing conversation. As a condition of this things change.'
All the people and relatives we spoke with confirmed staff regularly reviewed their care needs with them and communication was effective. One relative told us 'The manager is thoughtful and perceptive, exceptional. They understand people well and they listen.'
Staff told us they received training specific to the needs of the people they supported, as well as mandatory training in core subjects such as first aid and moving and handling. Records noted staff received support and assessment through regular supervision meetings and unannounced spot checks on the competency of their care provision.
The service conducted a survey in January 2013 to ensure care provision met people's expectations. Responses were highly favourable. An external contractor conducted a quality audit in July 2013. The manager identified improvements that could be made, and showed us evidence of changes implemented.
The service maintained accurate records, including people's care needs and staff training and supervision. Information was stored securely.
We saw person-focused care plans included information from carers and people using the service. People told us carers treated them with respect and dignity. We saw policies supported and guided staff to provide quality care, and checks ensured people were cared for safely. People told us they felt very safe with staff.
We saw the staff recruitment process was followed, but did not include full employment histories for most staff.