Archived: Harbour House

Harbour House is a care home which offers care and support for up to 20 predominantly older people. At the time of the inspection there were 19 people living at the service. Some of these people were living with dementia.

People received their medicines as prescribed. People who self administered their own medicines had been assessed to ensure they were competent to do this. The records held relating to some medicines were not always accurate. We have made a recommendation about this in the report.

The service was comfortable, clean and well maintained. People’s bedrooms were personalised to reflect people’s individual tastes. There were no malodours at the service.

People told us they were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Families were complimentary about the staff and management. Comments included, “Well feel truly blessed to have found this place” and “This place is fabulous, staff are wonderful.” People were complimentary about the food and had recently requested an addition to the menu which had been provided.

Staff were supported by a system of induction, training, supervision and appraisals. People were supported by staff who knew how to recognise abuse and how to respond to concerns. Staff received training relevant for their role and there were good opportunities for on-going training and support and development. Staff meetings were held regularly. These provided an opportunity for staff to air any concerns or suggestions they had regarding the running of the service.

The service had identified the minimum numbers of staff required to meet people’s needs and these were being met. People and visitors told us they felt there was always someone available to assist when needed. However, staff reported being “Hectic” and “Often still doing washes at midday.” The service had a call bell system which recorded response times. This showed people did not have to wait more than a few minutes for assistance when required.

The service had recently started using an electronic records system. Care plans had been transferred on to the system over the two weeks prior to this inspection. Training had been provided to all staff. The paper copies of people’s care plans remained available at the time of this inspection for reference during this transition period. Risks in relation to people’s daily life were assessed and planned for to minimise the risk of harm. Some risk assessments still needed to be transferred on to the electronic system but the paper copies had been recently reviewed.

People's rights were protected because staff acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The principles of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were understood and applied correctly. The policies held by the service were appropriate and provided up to date guidance to staff. Appropriate applications had been made for authorisations which had not yet been assessed. People were support 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 had access to meaningful activities. An activity co ordinator, who was shared with another service in the Anson Care group, arranged regular events for people. These included musical entertainment, arts and crafts. There was an opportunity for people to go out into the local community and meet up with people living at other services in the group.

The registered manager was supported by two deputy managers. There was regular contact from the operations managers and the provider. The registered manager worked at the service during the week and provided care as needed. They had a good rapport with the people living at the service, staff and families who visited. People were complimentary about the registered manager.

People were complimentary about the environment they lived in and thought the home was clean and tidy. We were told the domestic staff worked very hard and the home was always free from odours.

We were told people liked the meals they were provided with and were pleased with the choices offered to them.

We observed the staff were polite towards people who used the service. Conversations were conducted in an adult to adult manner in a friendly and yet professional manner. Staff showed compassion and kindness to those they cared for. We saw people's dignity was respected as staff consistently knocked on bedroom, bathroom and toilet doors prior to entering.

The home had addressed concerns which we had identified at the last inspection regarding infection control.

Staff were provided with training regarding their roles and a programme of supervision had been commenced by the newly appointed manager.

We spoke with visitors to the home, who told us they were satisfied with their relative's care at Harbour House and that their relatives always seemed contented and well looked after. One visitor said the staff were always friendly, helpful and welcoming to them.

We observed that staff were friendly, polite and respectful to people who used the service and that people were offered care in a manner that was discreet and respected their dignity.

We saw that written records were personalised and showed people's preferences and choices about how their care was to be delivered and that people and / or their relatives were involved in the development of the records.

People who used the service made positive comments about the activities that took place within the home. We were told about entertainers who came into the home, a weekly quiz, bingo, outings on a mini bus and a sugar craft demonstration.

We found that the systems in operation in the laundry did not promote the control of infection within the home. This could put people who used the service at risk from cross infection.