The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Harvelin Park

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

2 Harvelin Park, Lee Bottom Road, Todmorden, Lancashire, OL14 6HX (01706) 839888

Provided and run by:
Mrs Mavis Turner

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

9 November 2017

During a routine inspection

Harvelin Park is a residential care home for 6 people with learning disabilities. The home is an attractive bungalow set in a peaceful area of Calder Valley.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. People received support which was individual to their needs, and risks were minimised wherever possible. Staff received training and support which helped them be effective in their roles. We saw people chose what they would like to do with their time and who they spent this with. The registered manager ensured the quality of the service was monitored, and improvements were made when required.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

7th August 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 7th August 2015.The inspection was unannounced.

Harvelin Park offers personal and social care for younger adults with learning disabilities. The home is an attractive bungalow set in a peaceful area of the Calder Valley. The provider of the service is also the registered manager. A permanent home is offered to five people.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

Safeguarding information and contact details were easy to access. Posters encouraged reporting of potential abuse and the details of who could be contacted were present on notice boards. The service had a safeguarding policy in place. Staff told us they would reported any concerns. Staff felt their concerns would be listened to and actioned. Staff received training on safeguarding and were able to tell us different types of abuse and the warning signs they looked for.

People’s care records and risk assessments were kept up to date and reflected people’s current needs. Identified risks were supported by measures to reduce or remove the risks. Staff told us about people’s care records and associated risks.

The rotas showed us a sufficient number of staff were deployed to meet people’s needs and safeguard them from risks. People told us staff supported them and met their needs.

People’s medicines were administered in a safe way. People received their medicines in line with their prescription. We found medication administration records were signed correctly. Medicines were stored appropriately in a cupboard. People had ‘as and when required’ (PRN) medicine. These medicines had a protocol sheet advising staff when these could be administered.

Care records were person centred and reviewed monthly as a minimum or when someone’s needs had changed. Care plans included people’s personal preferences, likes and dislikes. Where appropriate peoples families had signed to say they supported the care records.

We saw people were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare professionals.

People were supported to do as much as they could for themselves to improve their independence. We saw people had individual menus to ensure the food provided met their preferences.

We spent time observing care and support being given. Staff were seen to treat people with respect and dignity. Staff had developed relationships with people so they appeared comfortable, at ease and shared interactions and laughter with staff. We saw staff asked people what they wanted to do before they did it. If people refused their decision was respected.

We spoke with two staff members who told us they had confidence in the registered manager and believed any concerns would be listened to, recorded and actioned. People that used the service told us they liked the registered manager and felt any issues they raised would be resolved.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the DoLS (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards) which applies to care homes. We saw referrals had been made for people that had been deprived of their liberty. The service was acting within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act, including meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

3 October 2013

During a routine inspection

The environment in which people lived promoted their privacy and dignity and supported their rights to choose and retain a level of independence. Each person had their own room which was decorated in the way that people wanted.

We spoke to one person who lived in the home who showed us his room and the things he liked about it. He was observed walking around the home and helping staff with some of their work

Care records recorded information on people's daily routine. They described what time people liked to get up, what they liked to eat and drink, and how they liked to spend their day. There was a weekly activities document which had information on the social activities people liked to get involved with.

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We looked at three care records and saw that records recorded information on people's daily routine.

We spent time observing people and their interactions with staff. We saw that staff were kind and caring to the people who lived at the home. We observed that people were comfortable in the presence of staff and the atmosphere in the home was pleasant and calm.

Staff received appropriate professional development. This was identified through their supervision and annual appraisal. There was evidence of regular supervision where training needs were identified.

We asked how the provider monitored the quality of care they delivered. We were told that the home carried out an annual service review which covered a number of areas including care, staffs behaviour and meals. There was also a staff satisfaction survey and a family and friends survey.

28 December 2012

During a routine inspection

During our visit we met with all of the people who lived at Harvelin Park. Due to their complex care needs the majority of people were unable to tell us of their experiences but one person said that they liked being at the home, liked the staff, liked their bedroom and gave a thumbs up when we asked if they liked the food.

We spoke with a visitor who said that Harvelin Park was "Absolutely marvellous" and gave their friend who lived at the home "love and care, great company and stability" They went on to say that their friend was "so much happier than they had ever been in their life"

A member of staff told us that they had worked there for many years, had great affection for the people who lived at the home and enjoyed their job very much.

We found a pleasant atmosphere in the home where people appeared to live in harmony with each other. We saw that people were supported to follow their preferred routines and activities.

30 December 2011

During a routine inspection

When we visited, some people were out taking part in activities of their choice during the day. We talked to one person who was at home and they said they were really settled at Harvelin Park and "had a good life".