Archived: Green Haven

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

We inspected the service on 20 May 2014 and found the service was not safe. People living at the home, staff and visitors were not adequately protected from environmental hazards. There were a number of hazards, including damaged equipment, flooring, furniture and fittings, unsecured chemicals and access to dangerous appliances such as the electrical fuses. We inspected the home again on 3 June 2014 and found these hazards had been removed.

Is the service effective?

The home was due to close in August 2014 and people living there had started to move to other homes. Everyone's needs had been assessed and they or their families had started to look for new homes. People who we spoke with told us they liked living at Green Haven and they considered their needs were met.

Is the service caring?

The service was caring. People living at the home told us they were happy there and well cared for. Visitors we spoke with told us they were happy with the service. We saw the staff were polite, kind and caring towards people. People were offered varied and nutritious food and drink. People's personal and health care needs were met.

Is the service responsive?

We inspected the service on 20 May 2014 and found a number of environmental hazards which had not been identified through the provider's own checks. We inspected the service again on 3 June 2014 and found these hazards had been removed.

The service was due to close in August 2014. The manager and staff had supported the people living there so they understood about this and to enable them to visit other homes where they might wish to move.

Is the service well-led?

When we inspected on 20 May 2014 the staff working at the home told us they were appropriately supported and managed. People living there felt the home was well run. People had been supported to understand the impact of the home's closure and what this meant for them. However, the provider had failed to identify serious hazards to health and wellbeing. When we inspected again on 3 June 2014 the provider had taken action to remove health and safety hazards.

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

The service was not safe. People living at the home, staff and visitors were not adequately protected from environmental hazards. There were a number of hazards, including damaged equipment, flooring, furniture and fittings, unsecured chemicals and access to dangerous appliances such as the electrical fuses.

Is the service effective?

The home was due to close in August 2014 and people living there had started to move to other homes. Everyone's needs had been assessed and they or their families had started to look for new homes. People who we spoke with told us they liked living at Green Haven and they considered their needs were met.

Is the service caring?

The service was caring. People living at the home told us they were happy there and well cared for. Visitors we spoke with told us they were happy with the service. We saw the staff were polite, kind and caring towards people. People were offered varied and nutritious food and drink. People's personal and health care needs were met.

Is the service responsive?

At our inspection on 11 January 2014 we identified a number of concerns. The provider had responded to the majority of these and taken appropriate action. However, they had failed to make sure the environment was safe and free from hazards. The manager had conducted a number of checks on health and safety, the most recent of these was less than a week before the inspection, however he had failed to identify a number of serious risks to people's wellbeing.

The service was due to close in August 2014. The manager and staff had supported the people living there so they understood about this and to enable them to visit other homes where they might wish to move.

Is the service well-led?

The staff working at the home told us they were appropriately supported and managed. People living there felt the home was well run. People had been supported to understand the impact of the home's closure and what this meant for them. However, the provider had failed to identify serious hazards to health and wellbeing. Following our inspection the manager informed us he had taken immediate action to rectify the concerns we identified at the inspection. We have not yet verified that the relevant improvements had been made.

People liked the food provided by the service, and we saw a variety of foods available for meal preparation. However, we observed that people's individual needs in relation to food were not always followed, which put people at risk of inadequate nutrition. People were also put at risk by staff lack of understanding and awareness of safeguarding and their responsibilities within this.

We also identified that the staff were working a high number of hours throughout the week, which could put people at risk of inappropriate care and support. Similarly, the provider's arrangements did not ensure that staff received appropriate training and support for their work with people.

The environment of the home had not been adequately maintained by the provider and could be putting people who use the service at risk.

We spoke with six people who use the service, three relatives and one visitor who carried out monthly Christian worship at the home. People said staff had a 'very good approach' and 'staff could not be any better'. Some of the comments made were 'staff are approachable' and 'staff are friendly, attentive and give a personal touch'. One person observed that 'staff and residents have a good rapport' and another that 'staff build good relationships with residents.'

We saw that people had a care plan which reflected their individual needs.

The building was old and in the process of being updated and renovated. Improved heating and hot water systems were required. The registered manager and the management committee were in the process of obtaining quotes for improvements.

Staff had received mandatory training in how to work with people safely and staff attended one to one supervision with a manager.

There was a system in place for obtaining the views of people who use the service and their relatives. Regular audits were carried out on the quality and safety of care.