Fair Haven

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.
This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Incidents and accidents were regularly reviewed by the provider to ensure lessons were learned to continually identify and embed good practices.The registered manager used an electronic system to review all incidents in the service.

Staff were given the opportunity to reflect on their practice during a particular incident or event, to identify areas for development.This meant the service continuously learned from incidents and strengthened the quality of care provided.

Staff told us they knew how to raise their concerns and felt the management listened to them and acted when necessary. A staff member said, “I have opportunities to raise concerns and share feedback with management and leaders.”

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Health and social care professionals were complementary about working with the service and told us the communication between them and the service was “excellent” and they had a “positive relationship” with the service.

The provider had a system in place to ensure people’s relevant documentation, including list of their medicines, were available in case of an emergency hospital admission.

People confirmed staff contacted healthcare professionals when necessary. Relatives told us they were informed, if appropriate, of any changes to people’s care.A relative said, “We are contacted to make sure we are happy with any suggested referrals or treatments.”

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Staff told us they believed people received safe care. A staff member said, “In terms of care delivery, care staff and senior carers receive appropriate and regular training to ensure they have the knowledge and skills required to carry out their roles safely and effectively. Residents' families are kept informed of any significant changes in their loved ones' wellbeing, as well as any actions taken or services provided. This helps ensure transparency and supports person-centred care.”

People consistently told us they felt safe living at the service. One relative said, “We never worry about [person].” Another relative told us, “We are totally confident that [person] is 100% safe living at Fair Haven.”

The service used their electronic system to have an effective overview of incidents and accidents. When necessary, these were escalated and reported to the local authority without delay.The registered manager had an oversight of this system.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). In care services, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met. All legal applications had been made in accordance with DoLS. This meant people’s rights were fully respected. The registered manager had oversight of DoLS applications.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People had personalised risk assessments in place. Risk assessments and care plans were regularly reviewed and updated using the provider’s electronic system, which ensured any changes were immediately accessible to relevant staff.

Staff knew people well and communicated changes to people’s care needs to the relevant health and social care professionals.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

We observed some cabinets requiring locks did not have them in place, and some tall cabinets were not securely fixed to the wall, which could present a safety risk.

The provider responded immediately and install locks where necessary and attached cabinets to the walls.

People had Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) in place. PEEPs provide staff and emergency service personnel with information on how people would need to be supported to safely evacuate in the event of an emergency.

Staff told us they knew how to report concerns relating to the environment.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The provider made improvements in their recruitment practices during our inspection. Staff had enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for adults. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the police national computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

Records showed staff had regular team meetings where a variety of subjects were discussed.

Staff confirmed they felt supported in their role. A staff member said, “I feel supported by the team and know that I can speak with [registered manager], or my senior supervisor, if I need advice, guidance, or support. I can also raise any feedback or concerns during team meetings, supervision sessions, or by speaking directly with them.”

People and relatives were complimentary about staff.One person said, “Staff are great, caring and quite lovely.” Another person told us, “[Staff are] very good, very helpful. We are very fortunate to have staff as they seem to be happy in their jobs.”

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

People and relatives were complimentary about cleanliness of the premises. One relative told us, “It is absolutely immaculate. For example, the bathroom was spotless every time I dropped in (which I did a lot)! [Person’s] bed was always made beautifully. And I was particularly impressed with how [person’s] clothes were laundered.” Another relative said, “Fair Haven appears clean to me and it’s light and airy.”

We observed the premises to be clean. The provider had an up-to-date infection and control policy.

Staff had completed infection prevention training. A staff member said, “Personal Protective Equipment stock is regularly monitored and replenished by the housekeeping team.”

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

We observed safe medicine administration and staff asking for consent before administering medicines to people.Records showed the service worked closely with healthcare professionals regarding medicines management.

Staff had medicines training and their competencies were checked regularly.

The provider had appropriate arrangements for the safe management, use and oversight of medicines.

Medication errors were investigated, and appropriate corrective actions were implemented to mitigate future risk.