Haven Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People's care plans and risk assessments were personalised for each person, and information was kept up to date. Care documentation enabled staff to engage with people as they reflected people’s individual interests and preferences for communication support.

People’s care was person centred and supported by information about what people enjoyed doing with their time and what was important to them. Activities were provided by the activity team in line with people’s interests 7 days a week. There was a full and varied programme to meet peoples varied interests. These included trips out on the minibus, quiz sessions, external singers, cocktail days, hand massages and nail care. There were regular meetings held by the activity person to constantly give feedback on what activities people wanted to do. There were some comments from people who were not able to leave their room that whilst they were given some activities to do on their own, they would like the staff to stay with them for a while. This was discussed with the registered manager.

Staff were considerate and respectful of people’s individual needs when they supported them. For example, people in bed were comfortable and staff ensured that they had their favourite music on, or television show and staff interacted with them positively, addressing them by their preferred name. During mealtimes, staff assisted people if they required it, by prompting or by assisting them to eat. There was a relaxed atmosphere and people enjoyed their meals.

People told us, “I like living here, the staff are good to us,” and “It has become my home, staff are like an extended family.” A relative said, “Amazing place, really so lovely, thoughtful and care is good and always involve us in decisions.” Staff told us, “We get to know people, their families and that allows us to really personalise care. Peoples’ needs change though but we update care plans so that we can follow people’s wishes.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People told us, “I can’t complain, I have all I need, and I don’t have to organise any of it, the staff do it for me, I don’t have to worry at all”, and “I see a doctor regularly and they always ensure I have my appointments, I also get my hair done and the staff paint my nails, lovely. ” Relatives told us they felt well informed and assured that if needed, specialist advice would be sought straight away. One relative said, “If my loved one is not well, they inform us straight away and keep us updated, they let me know of appointments at the hospital so we can go if we can and if we can’t a staff member goes and then let us know outcome.”

Staff told us that they worked alongside families and always informed families of any appointments and kept a record of the appointment and advice given. This was recorded on the multi-disciplinary team meeting area in the care plans.

A health professional told us, “Staff are professional and polite. They know their residents well and contact us when needed, communication has improved over the past year.” We were also told, “No complaints at all.”

Care plans were regularly reviewed and contained detailed information about people's care needs, including any health and medical needs. They also included evidence of regular partnership working with health professionals such as specialist nurses, and therapy teams. These records were well documented and showed responsive co-ordinated care.

Staff were able to discuss how they ensured people were treated equally and fairly no matter their age, sexuality or their health diagnosis. They told us of their knowledge of the Equality Act 2010 and how they used this in supporting people and decision making.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People and relatives told us that they were provided with information in a timely way. People spoke of meetings held where they could bring up any issues and discuss ideas regarding social events, staffing and other ‘home’ specific agenda points.

Since 2016 onwards all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The standard applies to all people with a disability, impairment or sensory loss and in some circumstances to their careers. Staff responded to people’s communication needs. These were assessed and recorded within individual communication care plans. These included specific information on how people’s communication needs could be met and what aided their communication. For example, those who needed spectacles or hearing aids had specific care plans. Systems to support people to communicate with staff, relatives and friends had been assessed and promoted. For example, video calls were set up and staff supported people to phone their loved ones as necessary. Staff spoke of how they used different ways to communicate with people, such as body, pictorial and hand language when required, all care plans were on a computer, and this enabled them to be printed off for family, hospital appointments and transfers. They could also be enlarged for those that have sight impairment. We were informed that all organisational documents could be provided in an alternative language if required, for people and staff whose first language was not English.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.
People told us they were asked for their views and felt listened to. Relative, resident and staff meetings took place and there were opportunities to feedback regularly. Feedback and actions taken were then discussed at the next meeting. These were well documented and used to continually improve the service.

There was a complaints policy and procedure, we saw that concerns raised had been responded to promptly and thoroughly. The management team kept a log that ensured the registered manager had an overview. Some relatives and people, however, were not aware of the complaints procedure and it was not visible in the service, during the inspection this was produced and displayed. They told us they had an open-door policy, and we saw people and relatives popping in to speak to the manager to share information and ask questions. Relatives told us, “I can raise anything face to face, the manager is always available and know it will be taken seriously.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Systems were in place to help ensure people were not prevented from receiving the care and support they needed due to their health or disability. The service management and staff told us they worked with external professionals to help ensure people received the relevant health and social care support they required. This was confirmed by people’s records which included support and guidance provided by external professionals who were involved in people’s care.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Information about people’s communication needs, cultural preferences, health conditions and any other factors that could increase the risk of inequality was gathered through initial assessments, regular reviews and ongoing conversations with people and their relatives.

The registered manager and activities co-ordinator told us there was a focus on creating varied events for all people and opportunities to connect with the local community, such as visits out in good weather and reaching out to external visitors, involving local young people and pets.Families were encouraged to bring in their family dogs which we saw brought smiles to people’s faces.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff worked closely with people to make plans about their future care. For example, people and their families were involved in planning how they would like to be cared for at the end of their lives. It was acknowledged that some people found these discussions difficult and so staff gathered information slowly and added important details after hospital admissions.

Care plans identified people's preferences at the end of their life and the service co-ordinated palliative care in the care home where this was the person's wish. Care plans contained information and guidance in respect of peoples' religious and resuscitation wishes. People had ReSPECT forms. ReSPECT stands for Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment and ensures their personal wishes are followed. People also had a DNACPR (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) decision, also known as a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) order,which were accessible to all staff and health professionals should a situation arise. Relatives and friends were supported with compassion through this difficult time. For example, visiting for those people at the end of their lives was extended, with the facility to stay overnight if wanted. DNACPR and ReSPECT forms were discussed with people and families, staff made sure people understood their options and what it meant to request withdrawing care, or not receiving care, to allow them a dignified death.