Archived: Haven Care Home

Haven Care Home provides nursing care for up to 40 people, some of whom maybe living with dementia.

At the time of our inspection 34 people were using the service.

The service had a registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People felt safe. Staff had been provided with training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and knew how to report any concerns. People had risk assessments in place to enable them to maintain their independence and minimise any unnecessary restrictions on their liberty.

Adequate staff with the appropriate skill mix were available to support people with their needs. Effective recruitment procedures were in place to ensure suitable staff were employed to work with people using the service.

Systems were in place to ensure that medicines were managed safely. This ensured that people received their medicines at the prescribed times.

Staff received appropriate training, supervision and support to enable them to carry out their roles and responsibilities effectively. People’s consent to care and treatment was sought in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 legislation.

People were able to make choices about the food and drink they had and to maintain a healthy and balanced diet. If required, staff supported people to access a variety of health professionals including the dentist, optician, chiropodist, dietician and the speech and language therapist.

People and their relatives commented positively about the standard of the care provided. Staff provided care and support in a meaningful manner; and knew about people’s preferences and personal histories.

People’s views were listened to and they were actively encouraged to be involved in their care and support. Staff ensured that people’s privacy and dignity was upheld. Any information about people was respected and treated confidentially.

People’s needs were assessed before coming to live at the service and the care plans reflected how their needs were to be met. There was a complaints procedure to enable people to raise complaints.

There was a culture of openness, transparency and inclusion at the service amongst staff and people using the service. A variety of audits were carried out, which were used to drive continuous improvement.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people who used the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People who used the service were being cared for in an environment that was safe. We found that people were protected from unsafe or unsuitable equipment, because the provider ensured that equipment was properly maintained and suitable for its purpose.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications had been submitted, appropriate policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit it.

We found that the recruitment procedures in place were robust and that the provider ensured people who used the service were safe and their welfare protected by a team of competent staff. We looked at staff rotas and we found that on each shift there was the appropriate numbers of staff as required with the right skill mix. We noted that staffing level had been increased recently to reflect service needs.

Is the service effective?

Where people did not have the capacity to consent, decisions made on their behalf had their best interest and human rights taken into consideration. People were supported to make choices and decisions and had control over their lives.

We observed that staff spoke with people and gained their consent before providing support or assistance. This was done in a respectful manner and it was apparent that people felt at ease in expressing their choice.

People who used the service had benefited from care and treatment that had been tailored for the individual. Relatives of people who used the service commented about the relaxed and supported care delivery from care staff. They told us that staff were courteous, treated people as an individual and attended to their needs as planned.

Relatives told us that there were no restrictions with regard to visiting times and they were able to see their family member in private as they wished.

We found that the service was well adapted to ensure that people who used the service were able to move and live an independent life as possible.

Is the service caring?

We observed how people who used the service were treated with respect and dignity by staff. We found that people were involved in all aspect of the care and supported in their decision making. Feedback from relatives confirmed how well their family members were treated and cared for by the staff team. They felt that there was a relaxed atmosphere at the service and people were encouraged and supported to lead a fulfilling life as much as possible.

Everyone living at the service had a person centred plan that had been reviewed on a regular basis. This meant that people received appropriate care and treatment to meet their current needs.

We found that there were a number of thank you cards displayed in the main lobby where people who had used the service expressed their gratitude to the management and staff.

Is the service responsive?

We found that there was a range of activities on offer at the service. Relatives told us that there was always something going on here and they found that people enjoyed the activities.

People we spoke with told us that they knew how to raise a concern if needed and whenever they had done so, they found that the management and staff had responded effectively. One relative told us, 'If I had any worry I would just talk to the staff and it will be sorted'.

We read through minutes of resident's meeting and found issues raised had been addressed by the management in a timely fashion.

Is the service well-led?

We looked at the quality assurance system in place for the service and we found that it was comprehensive and used various audit tools. We read the report of the latest internal quality audit and found that the contents of the audit were thorough and that appropriate action had been taken to address any shortfalls identified.

We saw minutes from team meetings and found that action had been taken to ensure that where shortfalls had been identified, they had been addressed within an acceptable time scale. This helped to ensure that the service was continuously improving and people's views had been taken into consideration.

Staff told us that they were aware of the importance of the various audit tools in place. They said that this helped in ensuring that the quality of service delivered to people who used the service were monitored.

We found that people were involved in all aspects of their care, and in any changes to the service that may have affected them. We also looked at other records to help us understand the needs and views of the people who used the service. These included a range of feedback and satisfaction surveys that had been undertaken with residents and relatives. As part of our inspection we reviewed minutes of residents meetings, staff personnel files a range of operational policies and the home's incident and complaints log.

The staff told us they felt confident that the quality of individualised care delivered in The Haven, was of a high standard. We found that care plans, staff records and other records relevant to the management of the home were accurate, reviewed regularly and fit for purpose.

The people who used the service told us that they received good quality nutritious food and had a choice about the type of food served at the home. We also found that people were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

People were protected against the risks of acquiring a health related infection. The home had systems in place to assess and continually review the service that it provided and had made improvements where needed.

The people we spoke with told us they were happy with the care they had received and with the staff team. One person who used the service told us 'I've got no complaints'. Another person who used the service told us 'I can't complain, its fine here, I'm happy'. Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the support needs of the people who used the service. One member of staff we spoke with told us 'We provide the best service to the people that we can'.

Staff we spoke with said that they had undertaken safeguarding vulnerable adults training and all knew the correct procedure to follow if they witnessed or suspected abuse. We spoke with people who used the service who told us that they felt safe and knew who to talk to if they had any concerns.

We looked at staffing rotas and during our visit observed levels of staffing. We saw that the service had enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

The service had quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and to gain the views of the people who used the service.