You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 10 October 2017

The inspection took place on 8 August 2017 and was unannounced.

Hatfield Haven provides accommodation and personal care for up to 22 older people some who may be living with dementia. Care is provided on two floors. At the time of our visit there were 21 people living in the service.

Since the last inspection a new manager has been appointed. They told us that they had applied to CQC to be registered. 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.

When we last visited the service in 2015 we found that improvements needed to be made. During this inspection we found the provider and registered manager management team had made improvements.

People spoke positively about the service and the care that was provided. They told us they were listened to and staff were kind and caring.

People told us that they felt safe. Staff were clear about what was abuse and the steps that they should take to protect people. The likelihood of harm was reduced as risks to people’s health and welfare was assessed. Risk assessments guided staff in how to reduce the risks and keep people safe.

Checks were undertaken on staff suitability for the role and there were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet the needs of the people living in the service.

The administration of medicines was safe. Staff had been trained in the administration of medicines and had up to date policies and procedures to follow. Their competency was checked regularly.

New staff received induction training to provide them with the skills to care for people. Staff files showed staff had undertaken sufficient training to meet the needs of people and they were supervised regularly to check their competence. However, staff needed to improve their knowledge and understanding around supporting people living with dementia. Staff were supported and supervision sessions gave staff the opportunity to discuss their work and identify any necessary training.

People who lived in the home were positive about the quality of the food and our observations were that people enjoyed their meals.

People had access to healthcare professionals and appointments were documented with outcomes implemented in care plans. We found staff had responded promptly when people had experienced health problems.

Quality assurance systems were in place however, they were not yet fully effective as they had not identified some of the areas that we found where improvements needed to be made. People and relatives were encouraged to give their views about the service. A complaints procedure was available and people knew who to speak to if they had a concern.

The new manager was approachable and promoted an open culture.

Inspection areas



Updated 10 October 2017

The service was safe.

Medication was safely stored and administered.

Staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people from the risk of abuse.

The provider had systems in place to manage risks. Staff understood how to recognise, respond and report abuse or any concerns they had about safe care practices.

Staff were only employed after all essential pre-employment checks had been satisfactorily completed.



Updated 10 October 2017

The service was effective

Consent and the Mental Capacity Act was understood by staff.

Staff supervisions were undertaken on a regular basis and staff felt supported...

People were supported to have a balanced diet and to make choices about the food and drink on offer.

People were supported to maintain their health by visiting professionals such as chiropodist, dentists and GP�s.



Updated 10 October 2017

The service was caring.

People were treated with respect and their privacy and dignity was maintained.

Staff were kind and considerate in the way that they provided care and support.



Updated 10 October 2017

The service was responsive.

Care plans were regularly evaluated to ensure they continued to reflect people�s needs.

They were activities to support people�s social and well-being needs.

There were systems in place to respond to complaints.


Requires improvement

Updated 10 October 2017

The service was not consistently well-led.

The service was run by a committed manager who had a clear vision for the service.

The service was run by a committed new manager who had a clear vision for the service. They had started to make changes but these were not yet fully imbedded. There were quality monitoring systems in place but they had not identified some of the inconsistencies that we found.

There were systems in place to seek the views of people who used the service.