Archived: Havilah Homes

In May 2014 we also found that although the service had addressed the concerns identified in July 2013 in relation to the safety of the building there were other areas of concern that meant that people could not be sure that they were living in a safe environment. We made a compliance action with regard to this. On this occasion we found that improvements had been made and the compliance action had been met. People were protected against the risks of unsafe premises.

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

We met with all four of the people who used the service. We spent time with them and observed how they were supported by the staff and we spoke to one person's relative. We saw that staff treated people with respect and dignity. The relative spoken to told us 'he is safe there.' A person who used the service said 'I am safe here.'

Staff had received training to ensure that they supported people safely People's care files indicated any risks to the person and how these could be minimised to ensure that the they was supported as safely as possible.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. One application had been made and approved. We saw that this had been reviewed in line with requirements of the act.

However we found that the service had not addressed issues found at the last inspection in July 2013 and that systems were still not in place to ensure that people received their prescribed medication safely. In addition although the service had addressed the concerns identified at the last in inspection in relation to the safety of the building we found other areas of concern that meant that people could not be sure that they were living in a safe environment.

Is the service effective?

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Staff had a good understanding of how to meet people's individual and assessed needs and of individual preferences. We saw that care plans were up to date and this meant that staff had current information and details to enable them to effectively meet people's needs.

Staff received ongoing training which was updated regularly. They also had individual meetings with the manager and had the opportunity to discuss work practice and any issues affecting people who used the service. This supported staff to provide effective care to people.

Is the service caring?

The relative we spoke to told us that staff were kind. We saw that staff supported people in a respectful and kind way. They offered people choices and talked to them about what was happening or what they needed to do. A person who used the service said 'they treat me politely. They respect my space and always knock.'

People's preferences and diverse needs were recorded and care and support was provided in accordance with this. Their religious, cultural and social needs were identified and addressed.

Is the service responsive?

Care staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about the needs of people they supported and how to meet them. They told us that all of the people who used the service were able to say if they were unwell or if they wanted something. One person told us 'they listen to me and changed something I did not like.'

We saw that care plans included information about people's likes, dislikes and preferences and had been recently reviewed and updated to ensure they had correct and up to date information about people's needs and how these should be met.

Is the service well led?

The provider was also the registered manager. In addition to Loxford Lane she also managed another service and staff confirmed that she visited this service regularly. Staff we spoke with said they felt the home was appropriately managed and that they received the support and guidance that they needed to carry out their duties and to meet people's needs. We saw that the manager monitored the quality of the service provided and sought feedback from people who used the service, their relatives and staff. Information gathered was then used to improve the service provided.

People told us they were generally satisfied with the staff. One person said of staff "they are all right." We found that robust staff recruitment procedures were in place, which included obtaining employment references and Disclosure and Barring Service checks.

We found that medications were not always stored securely. We further found that appropriate guidelines were not in place about when to administer 'as required' (PRN) medications. We also found that the service needed to take measures to improve its safety in relation to the risk of fire.

We found that people's care and treatment was delivered in line with their assessed needs. People were supported and involved in use their community. Risk management strategies were put in place to enable people to develop their independence without compromising their safety.