You are here

Havelock House Nursing Home Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 2 July 2014
Date of Publication: 12 August 2014
Inspection Report published 12 August 2014 PDF


Inspection carried out on 2 July 2014

During a routine inspection

An adult social care inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

At the time of our inspection there were 24 people living at Havelock house. Not everyone who lived at the service could tell us about their experiences, those who could told us they were happy with the care provided. We were told, �I have been here about a year, it�s like a second home.� And, �They look after you.� We also spoke with relatives and visitors to gain feedback from people who could not tell us about their experiences of living in the home.

We reviewed records about the assessment and monitoring of the quality of the service, policies, information around supporting and training staff, care plans and associated documentation.

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

We saw that care plans and risk assessments were in place. These had been written and reviewed regularly to ensure that information provided to staff was up to date and relevant.

The staff we spoke with demonstrated an appropriate level of understanding around how to recognise and report abuse. However not all staff had received all the mandatory training. No staff had received training in dementia care since commencing employment at the service.

Is the service effective?

Staff spoken with knew people and were able to tell us about their needs. People we spoke with who lived at Havelock House and relatives of people told us that the staff were supportive and provided good care. One relative told us, �I visit almost every day, staff are on the ball.�

Is the service caring?

We observed staff talking to and supporting people in a kind caring manner. Relatives and visitors spoken with told us they found staff to be kind and caring at all times. We were told, �Staff are lovely, they pick up on X�s mood, they know them and tell me how they've been when I come in.�

Is the service responsive?

We saw that referrals had been made to outside agencies and other professionals including GP�s and Tissue Viability Nurses (TVN). We saw that one person living in the home required increased levels of care and supervision. It was unclear what assessments had taken place to ensure that the service was able to meet this person's needs.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a registered manager. There was no deputy manager, however the manager told us that they were supported in their role by the activities co-ordinator who covered when the registered manager was unavailable. Staff and visitors told us if they had any concerns they raised these with the activities co-ordinator who we were told was very approachable and readily available around the home when they visited. If the co-ordinator was unavailable they would happily speak to the manager.

Staff meetings had only taken place once in the last year. A residents meeting had taken place in June 2013. Staff supervision and appraisals had not been completed in the last 12 months. The activities co-ordinator had started to gain feedback in resident satisfaction questionnaires. We saw that two of these had been completed, one in May and one in June 2014. Relative�s feedback forms were last completed in 2011.