Archived: Fairhaven Healthcare Ltd

On this inspection we found the agency had taken steps to rectify this.

We gathered evidence against the outcome we inspected to help answer four key questions.

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

' Is the service safe?

Below is a summary of what we found. It is based on discussions with two of the agency's management staff. They were the registered manager and care manager. We also telephoned and spoke with three care workers and an external training consultant. We looked at relevant documents such as policies and procedures, assessments of needs and care and support plans.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

Is the service caring?

The service is caring because the agency's registered manger told us they would arrange for care plans to include actions care workers were required to take if people they visited declined any support they required to ensure their needs were met.

Is the service effective?

The service is effective because care workers knew what to do if people lacked capacity to make decisions about what support and help was necessary for their welfare because of the training they had received.

Is the service responsive?

The service is responsive because we saw evidence in records and also care workers told us how they appropriately managed situations where people declined the help they needed. One record we looked at showed a care worker had called a person's GP because the person was in pain and told the care worker they did not want their GP contacted. The care worker explained to the person they had to make a best interest decision as the person was unwell and had remembered nothing about previous similar incidents.

Is the service well led?

The service is well led because following our last inspection the registered manager arranged for all staff to have training about the Mental Capacity Act. Knowledge of this legislation is essential to ensure care workers know how to uphold people's rights.

Is the service safe?

The service is safe because a copy of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice was available in the agency's office and a relevant policy and procedures. This meant the agency's staff had access to guidance about the law that enabled them to make decisions on behalf of people who lacked capacity and act in people's best interests.

The agency's registered manager was unavailable to assist us with our inspection. At the time of our visit they had been abroad since early March 2014 and were not due to return until early June 2014. They told us they carried on the day to day management of the agency through the use of e-mails and telephone conversations with other senior staff employed who worked for the agency. We were assisted with out inspection by a senior member of staff whose title was care maanger.

Our inspection took place over two days, 21 and 22 May 2014. On the first day we visited the agency's office and looked at documentation such as care plans, visit schedules, policies and procedures, training records, staff records, surveys and audit material. We also telephoned and spoke with two people and/or their relatives. This was in order to hear about their experiences using the service provided by Fairhaven Healthcare Limited.

On the second day we visited four people in their homes and spoke with them and/or their relatives. We also met with three care workers. Where it was appropriate we observed the help and support they gave to people and we discussed with them the training and support they had received.

During our inspection we followed up some concerns that had been brought to our attention by one person about the care and support their relative had received.

We gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions. Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our discussions with people using the service and or their relatives, care workers, and management staff, our observations during the inspection and looking at relevant records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

Is the service caring?

All the people we spoke with expressed positive views about care workers. They told they were treated with respect, their dignity was upheld and care workers were polite. One person said, 'They are brilliant. We have three regular carers and they are good 'uns. I like the way they talk and interact with my wife. They don't just do the job but talk with her about all sorts'.

Another person said, 'They are very polite. They couldn't be better. They are like old friends'.

People's privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

Is the service responsive?

Most people and /or their relatives we spoke with told us they received all the help and support they wanted.

People's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

The provider had a complaints procedure in place. Most of the people we spoke with told us they were confident the agency would treat their complaints seriously. One person we spoke with told us they had raised concerns and the agency had resolved them satisfactorily.

Is the service safe?

People were protected from risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

Some risks to people's welfare were identified to before they received a service to ensure they were protected from harm. However assessments of people's mental capacity had not always been carried out in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice. This meant care workers did not always know what decisions some people were unable to make for themselves.

Is the service effective?

Most people we spoke with who used the service and/or their relatives told us they thought care were competent to meet their needs. One person said, 'They spot things happening. They noticed she had a split in her skin and told me so I called our doctor. It seems as if they have been trained well'.

People were cared for by staff who had received training and were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

Is the service well led?

The provider had systems in place to regularly check and monitor the quality of the service and to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people and providing it.