We carried out a review of the data available to us about Safeharbour (Droitwich) on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Safeharbour (Droitwich), you can give feedback on this service.
The home has a lounge, dining room, conservatory, kitchen, bedrooms and a multi-sensory room for relaxation. A lift was available for people to access the first floor of the building.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.' Registering the Right Support CQC policy.
At the last inspection in, April 2016 the service was rated Good. At this unannounced inspection on 11 April 2018 we found the service remained Good.
Why the service is rated Good.
People living at the home had their preferences and interests met and their safety needs taken into account. Risks to people's safety were recognised and staff took action so people were able to do things they enjoyed and go to places they liked in ways which promoted their safety as their needs changed. There were enough staff available to support people so their care needs would be met in ways which promoted people's safety. People’s medication was stored and administered safely by staff whose competence had been checked.
Staff understood people’s health and welfare needs as guidance for them to follow was comprehensive and very detailed. When people’s needs changed care plans were up-dated promptly so ensured people received the care they wanted.
Staff had the used their skills and knowledge when caring for people so people would enjoy a good quality of life. Staff worked with other organisations and relatives so people's right to make decisions and their freedom was protected. People were supported by staff to enjoy a range of food and drinks so they would remain well. People had regular access to health appointments. Staff followed the advice of specialist health services so people would receive the care they required.
People were supported by staff that they had developed very caring relationships with. People were supported by staff to make choices and follow their individual interests.
Staff understood the need for people to remain as independent as possible. Staff understood the different ways people communicated with them in order to express themselves.
A complaints procedure was available but no complaints had been received.
People living at the home and their relatives were encouraged to give feedback on the service provided. The registered manager regularly checked the quality of the care people received. Where actions were identified these were undertaken to improve people's care further.
People had their own rooms and the use of a number of comfortable communal areas, including a kitchen and dining area, a lounge, a sensory room, an area for crafts and games, and garden areas.
We had the opportunity to meet with five people who lived at the home on the day of the inspection. Some people were not able to communicate with us directly, so we contacted their relatives after the inspections to find out what they thought about the care their family members received.
A registered manager was in post at the time of our inspection. 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 manager and staff team had developed ways of working with people so their individual preferences and interests were met and their safety needs taken into account. Risks to people's safety were recognised and staff took action so people were able to do things they enjoyed and go to places they liked in ways which promoted their safety as their needs changed. There were enough staff available to support people so their care needs would be met in ways which promoted people’s safety. Staff understood what actions to take if they had any concerns for people's safety or wellbeing. The registered manager provided advice to staff if they required any guidance on the best way to care for people so people's safety and care needs would be met. People were supported to take their medicines so they would remain well.
Staff had the used their skills and knowledge when caring for people so people would enjoy a good quality of life. Staff worked with other organisations and relatives so people's right to make decisions and their freedom was protected. People were supported by staff to enjoy a range of food and drinks so they would remain well. People had regular access to health appointments. Staff followed the advice of specialist health services so people would receive the care they required.
We saw caring relationships had been built with the staff and people were given encouragement and reassurance when they needed it. Staff supported people so they were able to make choices about their daily care. People's need for privacy and independence was taken into account by staff.
People benefited from living in a home where staff understood people’s care and support needs and their individual preferences. Staff took action when people's needs changed and adapted how they cared for them so their needs were met.
Relatives were confident staff would take action if complaints were raised and knew how to do this. Relatives had not needed to raise any complaints about the service.
Staff understood what was expected of them and were supported through training and discussions with their managers. There was open communication between the provider, registered manager, relatives and staff. Relatives and staff were comfortable to make suggestions for improving people's individual care and were listened to. Regular checks were undertaken on the quality of the care by the provider and registered manager and actions were taken to develop the home further.
There were arrangements for managing complaints about the service provided at the home. Staff told us that, if there was a complaint, they would report it to the manager. Records showed that no complaints had been received by the manager in the past year. We saw that any complaints that had been received by the manager had been recorded, investigated and action taken where necessary.
We spoke with one person who lived at the home who told us they would raise any concerns they had with staff members. This person was aware of who their key worker was. We also spoke with one relative who said that they knew who to speak to if they had any concerns to raise but were happy with the care provided. This demonstrated that people were able to raise their concerns and knew who they could talk to about any issues they might have.
We saw in care records that any concerns and feedback on experiences had been discussed with people and or their representatives at their reviews. Staff that we spoke to said reviews helped to address concerns or identify improvements and resolve concerns for the individual before they became complaints. This ensured people had their comments and complaints listened to and acted on, without the fear that they would be discriminated against for making a complaint.
The atmosphere at the home was relaxed and homely. We observed very positive and affectionate interactions between people and staff throughout our inspection. People living at the home were supported to be involved in all aspects of their life and, as much as possible, in decisions about their care or treatment. One person's relative told us, 'I am always made aware of what is going on and invited to any meetings.'
We spoke with two members of staff, who all had a good understanding of the types of concerns that would be abusive and their responsibilities to help protect and keep people at the home safe. They were clear about the steps they would take if they had any concerns and were confident that these concerns would be investigated or reported. Two of the staff also told us that the training and support provided ensured that they were able to look after and meet the needs of people living at the home.
There were arrangements in place to assess and monitor the safety and quality of care. The views of people and families were used to improve the quality of services delivered. We talked with two relatives, who felt people were safe at the home and staff treated people well. They told us they were very involved in the planning of their relative's care and in any key decisions that needed to be made.
Many of the people who lived at Safeharbour were not able to tell us much about their experience at the home due to their condition. We saw that staff at Safeharbour looked after people well and wrote down what help everyone needed. Staff said they were trained to help them understand how to meet people's needs and give people the support they wanted.
We saw that staff interacted with people who use the service in a friendly, courteous and respectful manner. Staff demonstrated they were aware of people's care and support needs.
We saw that people were very relaxed and at ease with staff and within their home environment. The atmosphere was calm, relaxed and very homely.
We looked at care records for two people living at the home and found their records provided clear and up to date information for staff to follow so they could give people the care and support they needed.
A new manager had been in post since July 2011, but has not yet registered with the Care Quality Commission.