• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Help at Home (Danbury Gardens)

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

1 Danbury Place, Humberstone, Leicester, Leicestershire, LE5 0AZ (0116) 276 5959

Provided and run by:
Help At Home (Egerton Lodge) Limited

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of assessment 20 – 22 January 2026.

The extra care housing complex, Danbury Gardens, is purpose built providing accommodation in a shared building. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual arrangements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s care and support provided by Help at Home (Danbury Gardens).

Help at Home (Danbury Gardens) is a domiciliary care agency that provides care to some of the people who reside within the extra care housing facility. The service provides care to older people, younger adults, people living with dementia, a learning disability, mental health need, physical disabilities and sensory impairments. Not everyone who resided at Danbury Gardens received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks relating to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of our assessment 24 people were receiving personal care from the Help at Home service.

We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

A robust assessment process involved people, and where appropriate family members, along with health and social care professionals involved in their care and support. People’s expectations of their care were fully considered as part of the assessment.

Risks associated with people’s care were assessed and any decisions made as to how risks could be mitigated fully involved the person. Where people chose not to follow the guidance of external professionals their wishes were respected and their understanding as to the potential impact documented.

People were fully involved in the review of their care needs and were central to any decisions made as to any changes in their commissioned package of support and care. Staff, where required, supported people to attend medical appointments and liaised with health care professionals to promote people’s health and well-being, where assistance was requested.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. The service provided an out of hours service, with staff always being on site, enabling them to respond to emergency requests for assistance. People’s needs were met by a consistent team of staff who had undergone a safe recruitment process and were able to communicate with them in their preferred language. Training and assessment of staff competence ensured people were supported safely and effectively.

The service was led by the needs of people and provided a person-centred approach to care with the person being at the heart of all decisions. Staff always sought people’s consent prior to all care interventions. People’s care records provided a personalised account of their care and support needs, including their prescribed medicine, which was managed safely by staff when required.

Staff were supported through supervision, appraisals and meetings. Staff spoke positively of the support they received from the registered manager and of the training that enabled them to meet the individual needs of people.

Systems and processes, underpinned by policies and procedures enabled the registered manager to maintain a clear overview of the service being delivered. The provider’ continuous approach to quality monitoring, enabled the registered manager to monitor the quality and safety of the service being provided.

Partnership working with external health and social care professionals, and collaborative working with the extra care housing provider supported and enabled the service to support people to live as independently as possible.

6 June 2018

During a routine inspection

This announced inspection took place on 6 June 2018. Help at Home (Danbury Gardens) was registered by CQC on 19 June 2017 and this was the first time we inspected this service.

This service provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building.

The accommodation is bought or rented, and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support.

Help at Home (Danbury Gardens) is situated in a large modern purpose-designed building in Leicester. The service caters for people who are usually over the age of 55 and have been referred by the local authority. Some of the people using the service have needs relating to their physical and mental health.

At the time of our inspection there were 34 people using the service’s personal care and support services. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

The service had a registered manager. This 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. At the time of our inspection a care manager was responsible for the day to day running of the service overseen by the registered manager.

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion and went out of their way to be friendly and socialise with them. People said they had regular staff assisting them so they got to know them well and the staff understood how they like their care provided. Staff respected people’s cultural needs and supported them to follow their beliefs and customs.

People were cared for safely. Staff were available 24/7 and people had personal alarms so they could summon assistance in an emergency. Staff were safely recruited and carried ID cards so people could check who they were. They knew how to protect people from harm and minimise risk to them.

Staff were well-trained and provided people with effective care. They understood the importance of good hygiene and infection control. They washed their hands and wore disposable gloves and aprons when providing personal care. They supported some people with their medicines and did this safely.

Staff provided personalised care and support that met people’s needs. People, relatives and staff gave us examples of how people’s health and well-being had improved since they came to the service and how they had become more independent and mobile. Care plans set out people’s goals and how staff were supporting them with these.

Staff assisted some people with their meals, following advice from dieticians, and taking into account people’s likes, dislikes and cultural preferences. They also supported people with their healthcare needs. They contacted healthcare professionals, for example GPs and district nurses, if people needed them and followed their advice.

Staff assessed people’s accommodation to ensure it was suitable for them and took action, where necessary, to reduce risk, for example by checking that rugs lay flat and did not present a tripping hazard. Staff were trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and always sought people’s consent before providing them with any care or support.

People told us staff encouraged them to socialise and to join in with activities and events that took part at the service and provided assistance for them to do this where necessary. They said the service had a happy and sociable atmosphere and people and staff got on well together.

People said they were involved in how the service was run and had the opportunity to comment on the care provided and make suggestions for changes. They made many positive comments about the care manager and the staff team. They said any issues they raised were promptly addressed. The provider and managers carried out regular audits of the service and used the results to continually improve the quality of the care and support provided.