You are here

Archived: Havendene Residential Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 27 June 2017

The inspection took place on 17 May 2017 and was unannounced. This meant staff did not know we were visiting.

We last inspected the service on 30 June 2016 to follow up concerns from the previous inspection in March 2016 where we issued warning notices in relation to the safe, effective and well-led domains of the report and were rated as Requires Improvment. At the inspection in June 2016 we found that the requirements stipulated in the warning notices had been met. On this visit we found improvements made to the safe, effective and well-led domains had been sustained and were now rated as Good.

Havendene Residential Home provides residential care for up to 25 older people, some of whom were living with dementia. At the time of this inspection there were 18 people living at the home.

The service had a registered manager in place who was on leave at the time of our visit. 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 providers were in attendance during the course of our inspection and we saw they were fully involved in all aspects of the day to day running of the home.

Staff and the registered providers understood their responsibilities with regard to safeguarding and staff had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults. People we spoke with told us they felt safe at the home.

Where potential risks had been identified an assessment had been completed to keep people as safe as possible. Accidents and incidents were logged and investigated with appropriate action taken to help keep people safe. Health and safety checks were completed and procedures were in place to deal with emergency situations.

Medicines were managed safely. We saw medicines being administered to people in a safe and caring way. People confirmed they received their medicines at the correct time and they were always made available to them.

We found there were sufficient care staff deployed to provide people’s care in a timely manner. We found that recruitment checks were carried out to ensure that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Staff received the support and training they required. Records confirmed training, supervisions and appraisals were up to date and pre-planned for the future. Staff told us they were supported to develop themselves personally and professionally by the home’s management.

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.

People gave positive feedback about the meals they were served at the home. People received the support they needed with eating and drinking. We met with the cook who was trained in the support of people with nutritional needs. Some people had been referred to external healthcare professionals for additional specialist support, for example those with diabetes.

People were supported by care staff who were aware of how to protect their privacy and dignity and show them respect at all times. We saw that the service worked to uphold people’s rights and supported open discussion on issues relating to equality and diversity in a pro-active and caring manner.

People’s needs were assessed before they came to live at the service. Personalised care plans were developed and regularly reviewed to support staff in caring for people the way they preferred.

An activity coordinator provided a wide range of activities and support for people to access the community. They also held regular discussion groups and meetings where people could raise any issues or concerns. The discussion groups that had taken place focussed on people’s rights and choices an

Inspection areas



Updated 27 June 2017

The service was now safe.

People told us they felt safe at Havendene.

Staff knew procedures to follow to keep people safe and there were policies and information to support them. Staffing levels were good and were built around the needs of the people who used the service.

Medicines were appropriately stored, administered and recorded by trained and competent staff.



Updated 27 June 2017

The service was now effective.

People were supported to have their nutritional needs met and mealtimes were well supported.

People�s healthcare needs were assessed and people had good access to professionals and services designed to help them to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

Staff received regular and worthwhile supervision and training to meet the needs of the service.

The registered provider had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and people's rights were upheld.



Updated 27 June 2017

The service remained caring.



Updated 27 June 2017

The service remained responsive.



Updated 27 June 2017

The service was now well-led.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Accidents and incidents were monitored by the registered providers to ensure any trends were identified and lessons learnt.

Staff and people said they could raise any issues with the registered manager and registered providers.

People�s views were sought regarding the running of the service and changes were made and fed-back to everyone receiving the service.