You are here

Archived: Harvey Road (86) Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 21 June 2016

This inspection took place on 18 May 2016. It was an announced visit to the service.

We previously inspected the service on 15 April 2014. The service was meeting the requirements of the regulations at that time.

Harvey Road (86) is a care home for adults who have an acquired brain injury. Harvey Road (86) is registered to provide accommodation for three people. At the time of our inspection two people lived at Harvey Road (86).

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

The home is located in a residential street in Aylesbury and had a homely, warm and welcoming feel. People who lived there commented on how quiet and relaxed it was.

Providers are required by law to tell the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of certain events. Notifications should be received when a decision had been made about an application to deprive someone of their liberty (DoLS). We found decisions had been made about depriving people of their liberty which we had not been notified of. We have made a recommendation about this in the report.

People were protected from avoidable harm as staff had received training on how to recognise potential abuse. Staff knew when and how to raise a concern about people’s safety.

Staff received appropriate training to develop their skills, which promoted people’s dignity and independence.

People were supported to be engaged in work placements and personal hobbies and interests were encouraged.

People’s comments about the service included “I feel safe and comfortable” and “I feel involved in decisions about my care, I do get worried sometimes, but staff know this and help me.”

Regular meetings with staff and people who lived at the service ensured that feedback was used to drive improvements in the service.

People received personalised care, as care plans were written in a way that promoted individualised care. Staff were aware of people’s likes and dislikes.

Inspection areas



Updated 21 June 2016

The service was safe.

People were protected from harm because staff received training to be able to identify and report abuse. There were procedures in place for staff to follow in the event of any abuse happening.

People were supported by staff with the right skills and attributes because robust recruitment procedures were used by the service.

Potential risks to people were clearly identified and mitigating actions were available to all staff. Risk assessments were reviewed regularly.



Updated 21 June 2016

The service was effective.

People received safe and effective care because staff were appropriately supported through a structured induction, supervision and training.

People were encouraged to make decisions about their care and day to day lives. Decisions made on behalf of people who lacked capacity were made in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People received the support they needed to attend healthcare appointments and keep healthy and well.



Updated 21 June 2016

The service was caring.

Staff were knowledgeable about the people they were supporting and aware of their personal preferences.

People were treated with respect and their privacy and dignity were upheld and promoted. People and their families were consulted with and included in making decisions about their care and support.

People were supported to be independent and to access the community.



Updated 21 June 2016

The service was responsive.

People�s preferences and wishes were supported by staff and through care planning.

People were able to identify someone they could speak with if they had any concerns. There were procedures for making compliments and complaints about the service.


Requires improvement

Updated 21 June 2016

The service was not always well-led.

The registered manager did not always notify the Care Quality Commission (CQC), when a decision had been made about an application to deprive someone of their liberty.

People were supported by staff who felt supported by the management team and were confident that any issues raised would be dealt with.

People were supported by management that continually monitored the quality of service provided.