• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Pinehaven

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

23 Parkwood Road, Bournemouth, Dorset, BH5 2BS (01202) 427941

Provided and run by:
The Stable Family Home Trust

All Inspections

9 August 2017

During a routine inspection

Pinehaven is a care home registered to accommodate a maximum of nine people with learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection eight people were living there.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good

Is the service Safe?

People were protected from potential abuse and avoidable harm by staff who were knowledgeable about recognising and reporting different signs of abuse. There were sufficient numbers of appropriately qualified staff available on each shift to ensure people were cared and supported safely. Risks to people were well managed and medicines were stored appropriately and managed effectively. People were protected by the prevention and control of infection.

Is the service effective?

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. People had access to a variety of health care professionals who provided care and support to people at the home. Staff received quality training which they found effective and useful. Staff were well supported with a clear system of supervision meetings.

Is the service caring?

People and relatives told us they found the staff to be kind, caring, friendly and patient. Staff spoke knowledgeably about people and showed they knew how people preferred to be given their care and support. People were treated with dignity and respect and supported to maintain their independence and make their own choices about how they spent their day. People’s privacy was respected.

Is the service responsive?

People received person centred care from a team of staff who knew them and their health needs well. People’s needs were re-assessed when their health needs changed and relatives were kept informed and included. People were supported to take part in a range of interesting activities that helped them to maintain their independence. People knew how to complain if they needed to and there was a clear complaints process available.

Is the service well led?

There was an open, honest, friendly culture and relatives told us they had confidence in the management team and the staff. People and their relatives were consulted and involved in their care and support. There was a programme of quality checks and audits to ensure the quality of the service was maintained.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

6 & 7 August 2015

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This unannounced comprehensive inspection took place on 6 and 7 August 2015. At the last inspection completed in July 2014, we found the provider had not met the regulations for two areas; inaccurate and out of date information recorded in support records and non-notification of incidents. At this inspection we found the provider had made the required improvements and the regulations were met.

Pinehaven is a care home registered to accommodate a maximum of nine people with learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection nine people were living at the home.

The registered manager had been employed at the home since May 2014. 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 feedback we received from people and their relatives was that Pinehaven was a “really good” place to live. People told us they were “Very happy” living there and all the relatives we spoke with gave positive views about the home and the care and support their relative was given.

People told us they felt safe at the home. Staff knew how to identify, prevent and report abuse and the provider had a system in place to protect people from the risk of harm.

Staff were friendly, kind and caring and gave individual, person centred care to everyone living at Pinehaven. Staff told us the training they received was a good standard and enabled them to carry out their roles effectively.

People’s needs were assessed and areas of risk were assessed and reviewed to ensure peoples’ safety. Support was offered in accordance with people’s wishes and their privacy was protected. Staff knew people well and understood their physical and personal care needs and treated them with dignity and respect.

People’s medicines were securely stored and managed and people were supported to take their prescribed medicines in a timely way.

People received their prescribed medicines when they needed them and medicines were securely stored and managed.

People were provided with a choice of healthy food and drink ensuring their nutritional needs were met. People’s health needs were monitored as required which included appropriate referrals to health professionals when required.

People were supported to take part in a wide range of activities, hobbies and work placements to maintain their independence and promote a healthy lifestyle. People could choose where they spent their time.

People told us they were happy to raise any issues or concerns with the manager and felt confident they would be listened to. Complaint forms were available in the home in an ‘easy read’ format for people to use if they wanted to express a concern.

People told us they felt the service was well led, with a clear management structure in place.

The provider was developing a quality assurance system to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.

14 July 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.

Pinehaven is a care home for up to nine people with learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection nine people were living at the home.

This was an unannounced inspection. On the day of the inspection we spoke with three people who lived at Pinehaven. We also spoke with the manager, team leader and two support workers. Following the inspection we spoke with four people’s relatives.

The manager told us that they had been managing the home for two months and had made an application to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to become the registered manager of the service. This application was being considered by CQC at the time of inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider

People’s medicines were securely stored and controlled drugs were safely managed. The provider had a policy to guide staff regarding the safe management of medicines. Staff were aware of the actions to take in the event of an error when giving medicines. However, the provider did not have safe arrangements in place for managing two people's ‘when required’ pain relief.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. No-one living at the service was subject to a DoLS authorisation. The manager told us that they planned to review whether any applications needed to be made following a change in the law. We spoke with three staff who were not familiar with DoLS or when an application should be made. The manager told us that DoLS training was not mandatory for staff working at the home.

Staff were aware of what constituted abuse and the actions to take if they suspected someone was being abused. The provider had a policy regarding safeguarding and the manager told us that they had recently made an alert to the local authority safeguarding team regarding an incident of alleged abuse. However, the provider had not made a statutory notification to CQC regarding this incident as they are required. At our previous inspection of the service in April 2013 we found that the provider had not made all of the statutory notifications to CQC as they are required. We noted this in the inspection report for the provider’s information. This was a breach of Regulation 18 Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009.

People’s support records and found that they did not always contain consistent or accurate information. The manager and the team leader acknowledged that records were not all up to date and had started work to rectify this. This was a breach of Regulation 20 Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.

The provider had not consistently analysed incidents and accidents to identify trends. We found the provider had undertaken regular visits to the home to monitor the quality. However, actions required following these visits were not always specific which made it difficult to establish whether or not the actions had been completed.

The people using the service, staff and relatives we spoke with, considered that there were sufficient numbers of staff. Appropriate checks were carried out before staff were employed, such as references and employment history. The provider’s disciplinary policy did not provide guidance to staff regarding the circumstances whereby a referral to the Disclosure and Baring Service (DBS) should be made. However, the manager was aware of the types of situations when referrals to the DBS may be required.

The staff we spoke with were aware of people’s risks and needs and how they should be supported. The staff we spoke with considered that they had were effectively trained and supported to carry out their roles. However, staff had not received training in the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

The people and the relatives we spoke with told us that they had sufficient to eat and drink. We saw that people were offered a choice of food and drink and that fruit was available in the home for people to help themselves to.

The people and relatives we spoke with told us that the staff were kind and compassionate. We saw that people were involved in making decisions about their care and the staff we spoke with were aware of people’s preferences. People accessed a variety of activities and work to meet their needs.

The people, relatives and staff we spoke with told us that they were comfortable raising concerns about the service if they had any. There were forms available in the home in an ‘easy read’ format for people to use. There was a complaints procedure which staff were aware of and regular meetings which sought people’s views of the service were held. However, there was no analysis or action plan developed in light of a recent survey of people’s views.

23, 24 April 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We checked whether compliance actions made at our last inspection had been met. These related to respecting and involving people, safeguarding, cleanliness and infection control, and quality assurance.

During the inspection we met the nine people living at the home. We spoke with three people about their experiences of living at Pinehaven. We also talked with the manager and three support workers. In addition, we observed care and examined records.

The manager at Pinehaven is not yet registered with the Care Quality Commission. In this report the name of a former registered manager appears because they were still the Registered Manager on our register at the time of this inspection.

People's privacy, dignity and independence were respected. Their views and experiences were taken into account. One person commented of recent changes at Pinehaven, 'We've all done exceptionally well'.

People experienced care and support that met their needs and protected their rights. One said the manager had 'done a very good job for us'.

The provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent it from happening.

People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.

Staff were supported to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard.

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others.

12 November 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

During this inspection we used different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. People using the service had complex needs so they were not always able to tell us their experiences. Therefore, in addition to speaking with one individual we gathered evidence by observing care; reviewing records and speaking to the acting manager and four care workers.

The registered manager was not working at Pinehaven at the time of our inspection. The home was supported by an acting manager.

The provider had taken steps to ensure people's choices and rights were respected. However we could not be sure that people's privacy and dignity was respected fully.

We found people's needs were assessed; however some care plans and other records required updating.

Records indicated some people living at Pinehaven had been unable to exercise choice regarding the food they were able to eat and how they spent their personal money. The provider had taken steps to rectify this and ensure arrangements were in place enable people to exercise choice and promote their human rights.

People were not fully protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had not been followed.

People were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.

Care workers were supported to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard.

Whilst the home had systems to monitor their service provision, these were not always effective.