The Care Quality Commission
  • Residential substance misuse service

Archived: Harvey House

Harvey House, Ashton Road, Lancaster, Lancashire, LA1 5AZ (01524) 65777

Provided and run by:
Harvey House Social Enterprises Limited

All Inspections

25 July, 26 July 2016

During a routine inspection

We do not currently rate independent standalone substance misuse services.

We found the following issues that the provider needs to improve:

  • Managers did not supervise and appraise staff’s work performance consistently.

  • The organisation did not have a ligature and environmental audit in place. This is to ensure that staff take action to reduce any ligature risks and ensure the premises are safe. Fridge temperatures were out of range for a consecutive period and these had not been brought to the attention of the management to address this issue.

  • There were gaps in the information held on staff files. Managers were not fully checking whether potential staff were suitable before they started working with clients at Harvey House.

  • Not all staff were up-to-date with mandatory training and therefore did not receive ongoing training and support to carry out their roles safely and effectively.

  • The auditing programme was not fully implemented. Managers were not fully assessing, monitoring and improving the quality and safety of the service provided.

  • The patient group directive for the emergency administration of chlordiazepoxide was not up-to-date, signed and authorised.

  • The company director was not visible within the organisation and staff were not kept fully up to date about the organisation’s future direction.

  • There was no reference to the Duty of candour in any of the policies and procedures as required under regulation 20 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

  • The registered person had not submitted a notification to CQC to inform the Commission that an event (flooding) took place that prevented them from carrying out the regulated activities safely and where service users had to be moved to other services as required under Regulation 18 of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009.

However, we also found the following areas of good practice:

  • The service had enough staff to care for the number of clients and their level of need. Staff knew and put into practice the service’s values, and they knew and had contact with managers at all levels, including the most senior managers except at director level.

  • Staff carried out assessments before clients were admitted to ensure that the service could meet the individuals’ needs. Risk assessments were comprehensive and staff reviewed them regularly.

  • Clients were involved in decisions about their treatment and care.

  • The environment was clean, well maintained, welcoming and comfortable.

  • Staff treated clients with respect and kindness and supported them throughout their stay.

  • Staff we spoke with were highly motivated in their work and told us they felt supported by the manager and business manager. Staff told us they felt comfortable raising any concerns or issues.

5 June 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke individually with the registered manager and staff at Harvey House. We also spoke with three people receiving treatment at the home. We asked people to tell us about their experiences of living at the service. We reviewed care records, policies and procedures, audits and risk assessment documentation.

One person told us, 'I'm so happy I came here. People are so friendly and staff are very respectful and supportive'. Another person said, 'I'm very happy here. The facilities are really good and everything is clean, tidy and comfortable'.

The service demonstrated good practice that ensured people were protected from infection. Additionally, if the need arose, people understood the process for making a complaint. Care practice and record-keeping was underpinned by clear, regular auditing procedures.

Areas of non-compliance noted at our last inspection had been addressed. We observed that staff were able to provide treatment in a respectful, timely and unhurried way. People felt fully involved in their care.

30 November 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with the manager, six staff and most people who receiving treatment at Harvey House. This helped us to gain a balanced view of what people experienced when receiving treatment at Harvey House.

Most people who used the service felt staff were supportive and listened to them. One person said, 'The staff are great, they're always there if you need a shoulder to cry on'. Another person told us, 'The staff are very helpful and supportive'. However one person said, 'One or two staff can be a bit disrespectful in how they put things'.

We observed the interaction between the staff and the people who used the service. We observed that staff were respectful of people and treated them with dignity. We saw staff knocking on people's bedroom doors before entering. We also saw staff talking with people in a courteous manner. People said they felt safe at Harvey House and the staff were supportive.

We looked at three people's care records. These records contained, care plans that were exactly the same for each person and outlined standard treatment processes. This meant that care records were not person centred and did not relate to the individual.

Most people told us that they had not seen their care plan. When we asked about their care plan, one person said, 'I am not allowed to see my notes unless I put it in writing'. Although staff said that people were involved in planning their care, most people we spoke with said that they had not.