Haven Nursing Home

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 71 (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.

Whilst most people could not recall having discussions about their care plans, they did not raise any concerns about the care and support they received. One person told us, “They seem to know very well how to look after me.” Another person said, “I am building up my confidence, they are helping me enormously. They are always encouraging me.” A relative commented, “They have asked me questions about [Name’s] care. I think things work very well here; I have no qualms about the care.”

Staff understood the importance of promoting people’s wellbeing by understanding their preferences and personal routines. One staff member told us, “Every resident is different and needs different things. We do things in the way they want, that’s what makes it person centred. Take [Name] for example, they hate to get up too early, so they have a lie in whereas [Name] is a morning person, and you know they like to be up bright and early. It’s about being individual.” Another staff member gave an example of how one person’s previous experiences impacted on their engagement with personal care. They explained how adapting their approach supported the person to feel comfortable and accepting of the support being offered.

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 received continuity of care because they received care from a permanent staff team who had time to build their knowledge and understanding of people. The registered manager told us they did not use agency staff and added, “I try to put the same staff team (working with people) because they build up relationships and residents feel safe."

Relatives who wanted to retain a role in their family member’s care were supported to do so. The registered manager gave examples of where relatives continued to support their family members and explained, "If residents’ families want to get involved in their care and it is safe to do so, we don’t have a problem with that at all."

External health and social care professionals were positive about information sharing to ensure people received continuity of care. One healthcare professional told us staff were responsive in ensuring information was known and accurate. They commented, “If they're unsure about something then they'll use their IT/records system to quickly find the answer or provide clarification.”Another healthcare professional said, “If I need any information and they (staff) feel they don’t know the answer, they are able to go and get the information extremely quickly.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s individual communication needs were assessed and planned for. People were given information in a form that supported their communication. For example, visual prompts like picture cards or showing people plated up menu choices at mealtimes. One staff member told us, “We use picture cards. They work well, especially with the residents who have dementia. It means we are helping them to make choices, and it gives them some control.”

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Half of the people and relatives we spoke with could not recall being invited to meetings or being asked to complete questionnaires. Comments included: “I haven’t seen anything about residents’ meetings” and “No meetings that I know of ever.” The registered manager acknowledged that meetings had not always taken place as planned, but confirmed they held a weekly ‘surgery’ where people could discuss their feedback. A residents’ quality questionnaire had been completed in February 2025, but the results had not been collated at the time of our inspection visit.

Whilst people could not always remember being asked for their feedback, they told us they would feel happy to share any concerns. One person said, “If I ever raise anything they deal with it. It’s only small things usually.” A relative commented, “If anything happens, they always ring and tell me. They always listen to my queries about [Name’s] care.”

Staff told us they would support people to escalate any concerns they shared with them. One staff member told us, “If a resident or their relative made a complaint and I could sort it out I would. If I couldn’t then I would tell the nurses or the manager so they could deal with it. I would tell the resident or the family member what I had done.”

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

Clinical staff used a recognised tool to assess people to identify any deterioration in their health. This meant people who could not verbally express their pain or discomfort, could be referred to other healthcare professionals as needed.

Care staff understood their role in escalating issues to ensure people promptly received care and treatment when they needed it. One staff member explained, “We tell the nurses if something is wrong or not quite right, perhaps someone hasn’t been eating or drinking, or they seem under the weather. The nurses will do their checks and then get in touch with the GP. It might be the resident needs antibiotics.”

Where people had difficulties accessing the appropriate treatment, staff supported people to ensure their needs were met. The registered manager explained how staff had liaised with other healthcare professionals to enable a person who was cared for in bed to attend an appointment for a procedure at a dental surgery. With the support of staff, the person had received the dental treatment they required.

The registered manager signposted people and their relatives to other organisations and partners to ensure they accessed all available funding to support their care.

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.

The registered manager was aware of those people who may experience inequalities, particularly those who did not have any family to advocate on their behalf. They gave examples of how they had referred people to other agencies to ensure they had someone to advocate on their behalf. One staff member gave an example of how they ensured people had a positive experience. They explained, “We have residents from different backgrounds and different cultures. We respect each resident as an individual. Some time back we had a resident who was a Jehovah’s Witness. I did some reading about it so I could understand more. I wanted to make sure I didn’t do anything that could be disrespectful.”

A healthcare professional told us the service had recently managed some complex physical and mental health conditions and commented, “We always work together to problem solve.”

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.

The registered manager was motivated to provide high standards of care as people’s health deteriorated. As well as working towards accreditation in a recognised standard for end-of-life care, they had introduced their own ‘Rosie’ model of care to ensure people had the support they wanted in their final days. The vision of ‘Rosie’ was to, “Enable a ‘gold standard’ of care for anyone who is coming towards life’s end to help them live well before they die and to die well, in the place and the manner of their choosing.” The framework helped staff to have conversations with people and their relatives to ensure people’s clinical, spiritual and holistic needs were met in their final days.