Henley House

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 assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People received care which was person-centred. People consistently told us they were happy with their care and the support staff provided. One person told us, “I do like to do my own things here. I like to be independent. I get myself dressed.” A relative told us, “Staff know my [relative] well. I have real peace of mind knowing my [relative] is being well looked after.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People benefitted from close partnership working with commissioners, pharmacies, GPs and the hospital. One relative told us, “My relative needed to attend hospital. Staff found them not in a good way. We wanted [relative] to come back here. The staff are lovely.” Leaders told us they are responsive to feedback and suggestions from health and social care partners to continually improve the care to ensure good partnership working.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information was provided in a way which was accessible to people. Some people were living with Dementia and staff and leaders adapted information to make sure it was accessible for people’s different communication needs.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People were actively involved in decisions about the service. We found there were regular meetings to engage people on a group and one to one basis. Leaders told us they used this feedback to shape and inform changes at the service. One member of staff told us, “We change the menu depending on what people want. We ask people what they want and make sure this is put on the menu. If people don’t like what’s on the menu, we will make them something they do want.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People had access to services and professionals they needed. One person told us, “The staff have called the optician for me. I keep misplacing my glasses and I can’t find them. I get to see the optician when I need to.” We spoke with visiting professionals who told us they had a good working relationship with staff at the service and there were no concerns about the partnership working. Adjustments were made to ensure the premises was suitable and accessible for people living there.

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.

Systems were in place to make sure there was equity in people’s experiences. We found where changes and improvements were required, this was communicated by leaders to staff to make sure these changes were embedded. This made sure people had a positive experience of their care and people’s outcomes were met. We found people with protected characteristics had these reflected in care plans and staff had good knowledge of people’s protected characteristics. St\ff were trained and respected equality and diversity.

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.

Improvements were needed to make sure people’s end of life wishes were recorded. People had end of life care plans and no concerns have been raised about the end of life care people received. However, we found end of life care plans did not contain enough detail on people’s end of life wishes and preferences. Leaders told us this was due to a reluctance for people to discuss this subject. The provider was responsive to this and will be revisiting this subject with people in a sensitive manner. People had been supported to consider their wishes. The provider had a policy in place to record people’s wishes. Not everyone wanted to discuss this fully, which meant some plans may have lacked detail. The provider continued to offer people support.