You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

We are carrying out a review of quality at High Haven. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 September 2016

We conducted an unannounced inspection of High Haven on 22 August 2016.

High Haven is a service that provides residential care and accommodation for a maximum of 40 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. On the day of the inspection, there were 34 people living in the home.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

People consented to their support and were involved in the planning and review of their care. The registered manager ensured that people were able to contribute to the running of the service and encouraged people to be involved.

Staff supported people safely and knew what to do to protect people from the risk of abuse. Recruitment procedures ensured staff had the appropriate values when they were employed and were supported to gain skills and qualifications shortly after they started work. There were enough staff on duty to attend to people’s needs in a timely way and keep them safe. People were treated with dignity and respect.

People received their medicines in a safe manner and when they needed them.

People had access to healthcare services and received on-going healthcare support for example through their GP, hospital doctors and specialists. Referrals were made to other professionals such as community nurses and dieticians if the need arose.

The service followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of practice and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This helped to protect the rights of people who were not able to make important decisions about their care themselves.

Risk assessments and care plans for people using the service were effective, individual, and detailed. People’s individual care needs were recorded daily and this information was shared with staff so that the care delivered was responsive to people’s needs. There was a strong focus on supporting people in returning to independence following an admission to hospital following illness or injury.

Quality assurance systems were in place to assess and monitor the service people received. Families were consulted so that their views could be gained. These views were acted upon with actions taken and improvements made. Complaints were appropriately responded to, in line with the providers’ policy.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 September 2016

The service was safe.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs in a timely way.

Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse.

Medicines were managed safely and people received them when they needed them.

Effective

Good

Updated 30 September 2016

The service was effective.

Staff had received the right training and supervision so that they could provide people with the care they needed.

People had enough to eat and drink and their individual dietary needs were catered for.

People were supported by staff to maintain their health.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 September 2016

The service was caring.

Staff responded to people in a polite and friendly way. Relatives told us that staff were kind and caring.

People were involved in planning and making decisions about their own care.

People were treated with dignity and respect.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 September 2016

The service was responsive.

People’s care and support needs were assessed and planned for. Staff had a good understanding and knowledge of people’s individual care needs.

People were able to access a range of activities if they wished to participate.

The provider had a system in place to investigate and deal with complaints. People were comfortable in raising any concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 September 2016

The service was well-led.

People and their relatives valued the open culture of the home and approachability of the registered manager.

Regular meetings took place so that people, their relatives and staff were able to engage in dialogue with the homes managers.

There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided.