Archived: Fair Haven

We found the following examples of good practice.

The service was clean and free from clutter. The service had up to date cleaning schedules in place for day to day cleaning.

The service provided effective ways for people to visit their relatives during the COVID-19 pandemic. The service had built a secure visiting pod to enable people to receive visits from their families.

Staff always answered the front door to contractors or professional visitors and prompted them to put on personal protective equipment (PPE) and wash their hands. The provider also had plans in place to install a hand washing sink in the home’s front porch.

Visiting arrangements were in accordance with current government guidance. The registered manager and provider had informed families about the service’s social distancing and visiting arrangements. Information on visiting was available on the provider’s website.

The service offered people using the service and their loved one’s video calls at any time. The service also facilitated telephone calls at any time.

The service participated in the whole home testing programme, this meant staff were tested for COVID-19 weekly, supplemented by rapid testing twice a week. Residents were tested every 28 days.

Systems were in place to ensure staff isolated for the required period in the event they tested positive for COVID-19. The service had a contingency plan for the isolation of people if the service experienced a COVID-19 outbreak. All people using the service had been offered a COVID-19 vaccine.

Risk assessments had been completed for staff identified as being more at risk if they contracted the virus.

Staff had received additional training in infection prevention and control (IPC) and COVID-19 awareness from the provider’s training team. This ensured staff understood what actions to take should people using the service become symptomatic or have a positive COVID-19 test.

The service’s IPC policy and IPC audits were up to date. IPC audits were carried out monthly and included extra measures the home had put in place due to COVID-19. Any areas requiring further action were identified during these audits were addressed immediately.

Fair Haven is registered to accommodate up to 30 people. At the time of our inspection 20 older people were living in the home in one purpose built building in a residential area of Bournemouth.

At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People were supported by staff who consistently understood the risks they faced and the support they needed to reduce these risks. Staff understood how to identify and report abuse and told us that people always came first. Staff supported people to take their medicines as prescribed.

People liked the majority of the food and there were systems in place to ensure they ate and drank safely. Information about which people needed their food fortified was not available to all staff cooking meals. This had not led to people losing weight and was addressed during our inspection.

People were supported by caring and dedicated staff. Although some training had fallen out of date people told us the staff were good at what they did. Training dates had been booked to address this. Staff knew people well and were able to describe the care and support they needed. People had access to a range of activities, both within the home and the local community, that they enjoyed.

Communication needs were considered and staff supported people to understand the choices available to them. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Where people needed to be deprived of their liberty to receive care this had been identified and responded to appropriately.

People felt they could raise any concerns and these were addressed quickly. They told us that the manager and the whole staff team were kind and approachable.

Quality assurance systems reflected the needs of the service and involved people. These systems had been effective in the ongoing development of the service.

The home had a registered manager who was available during 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.

People who used the service, and their relatives, told us that they felt safe and well looked after.

Staff met people’s needs effectively and people told us that they were all kind and caring. Staff told us that they enjoyed working at the home and they were very knowledgeable about people’s needs, preferences and life experiences. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity.

Staff had a good understanding of what constituted abuse and told us that they would be confident to recognise and report it.

We looked at how the home was being staffed. We saw there were enough staff to provide safe care and social activities. People we spoke with were satisfied with staffing levels.

Recruitment and selection was carried out safely with appropriate checks made before new staff could start working in the home.

Staff managed medicines safely. They gave them as prescribed and entered, stored and disposed of them correctly. People were able to manage their own medicines if they were able to do so safely. People said staff gave them their medicines when they needed them.

People were supported with their health needs well and the provider sought information and advice swiftly where needed.

People told us they were offered a choice of meals. They said the meals were good and they were offered snacks and drinks, day and night.

Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The management team discussed DoLS applications they had submitted. We found that there were some shortfalls in acting in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

People told us they knew how to raise a concern or to make a complaint if they were unhappy with something. They were confident they would be listened to if they had concerns and that action would be taken quickly to make things right.

There were procedures in place to monitor the quality of the service. The management team were in the home most days and sought people’s views formally and informally.

There was a transparent and open culture that encouraged people to express any ideas or feedback. People and their relatives felt their needs and wishes were listened to and acted on.

People received care and support to meet their needs in accordance with their plan of care. People we spoke with considered their care needs were met by staff. They said they were involved in the care planning process and support they received was given as planned.

People we able to choose where they ate their meals and had a choice of menu. Alternatives were available if needed. Staff ensured people were sensitively supported to eat and drink independently. The lunchtime meal was unhurried and people were able to eat at their own pace.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service and others.

People living at Fair Haven were very positive about their experience of living at the home. No one had any complaints or concerns about how the home was run and managed.

People told us that they had good relationships with the staff, who were described as 'on the whole very good'. They told us that the home was kept clean and warm. People said there were activities to keep them occupied.

People told us that they were involved in decisions about how they were looked after and that they could choose how they wished to spend their day.

People who lived at Fair Haven benefited from thorough processes and procedures being followed when new staff are recruited, which meant they were protected from harm.

Medicines were prescribed and given to people appropriately.

We saw the home had a robust quality assurance system in place to ensure standards in the home were maintained.