You are here

Rest Haven Charitable Home Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 12 December 2018

This comprehensive inspection took place on 21 October 2018 and was unannounced. The last time we inspected this service on 18 and 26 October 2017 we completed a focussed inspection, looking at the Safe, Effective and Well-Led key questions. After that focussed inspection we rated the service ‘Good’ overall but ‘Requires Improvement’ in the Safe key question. During that inspection we had identified that safety concerns were not always being reported as required and medicines not always being properly managed. During this inspection in October 2018 we found that sufficient action had been taken to improve on these areas. We identified some concerns with regards to the environment which meant Safe was rated ‘Requires Improvement’ once more. All other key questions were rated ‘Good’ which meant the home was rated ‘Good’ overall.

Rest Haven Charitable Home (referred to in this report as Rest Haven) is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Rest Haven accommodates up to 34 people in one adapted building. At the time of our inspection there were 30 people living in the home.

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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

During the inspection we identified two unrestricted windows which could pose harm to people. We raised this with the registered manager and they confirmed those had been secured immediately following our inspection. We also raised concerns about some uneven flooring which could potentially be a risk to people. The registered manager took immediate action following our inspection to add signage to draw attention to it and reduce the risks.

People praised the staff and management of Rest Haven and told us they received high quality care. Comments included, “I wouldn’t go anywhere else”, “They’ve got very good staff. The staff really know what they’re doing”, “They will do everything they can oblige. We can do what we want” and “I would like to stay here for the rest of my life.” People were held in high regard and had a good quality of life. People had freedom to make choices and were supported to be independent. Staff treated people with respect and kindness.

People who lived in Rest Haven were protected from risks relating to their health, mobility, medicines, nutrition and possible abuse. Staff had assessed individual risks to people and had taken action to seek guidance and minimise identified risks. Staff knew how to recognise possible signs of abuse. Where accidents and incidents had taken place, these had been reviewed and action had been taken to reduce the risks of reoccurrence. Staff supported people to take their medicines safely and staffs’ knowledge relating to the administration of medicines were regularly checked. Staff told us they felt comfortable raising concerns.

Action had been taken to ensure staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the principles of the Act and how to apply these. We found people were involved in all aspects of their care and their consent had been sought prior to any care being delivered. Where people had been unable to make a particular decision at a particular time, their capacity had been assessed and best interests decisions had taken place and been recorded. Where people were being deprived of their liberty for their own safety the registered manager had made Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) applications to the local authority.

Recruitment procedures were in place to help ensure only people of good character were employed by the

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 12 December 2018

Most aspects of the service were safe.

People were protected from the risk of harm and abuse and staff understood their role in keeping people safe. Although we did identify environmental risks to people action was taken to reduce those risks immediately.

Risks to people had been identified and plans had been put in place to minimise these.

Staffing numbers ensured people�s needs were met safely.

People received their medicines as prescribed. The systems in place for the management of medicines were safe and protected people.

Safe and robust staff recruitment procedures helped to ensure people received their support from suitable staff.



Updated 12 December 2018

The service was effective.

People�s rights were respected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People�s consent was sought prior to care being provided.

Staff felt supported and told us they received sufficient training to carry out their role. Staff understood people�s needs and how to best meet them.

People had access to enough to eat and drink in a way that met their preferences.



Updated 12 December 2018

The service was caring.

Staff demonstrated respect for people�s dignity and privacy.

We observed some positive interactions between people and staff.

People spoke very highly of the staff at the home and the care they provided.

Staff knew people well and knew how best to communicate with them.



Updated 12 December 2018

The service was responsive.

The registered manager was working on improving the person-centred information available in people�s care plans and developing person-centred activity plans for people.

Staff were responsive to people�s individual needs and these were reviewed regularly.

People were involved in developing their care plans and these described the support people needed to manage their day to day health needs.

People's communication needs were met. The service was complying with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS).

People were encouraged to make complaints where appropriate and these were acted on.



Updated 12 December 2018

The service was well-led.

There was a strong emphasis on continual improvement which benefited people and staff.

There were systems in place to assess and monitor the safety and quality of the care provided.

People spoke highly of the registered manager and the leadership team.

People were asked for their views and these were acted on to improve the service.