Haven Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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 provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Staff and the registered manager talked of a strong culture of team working and providing person-centred care and support as a team. Staff commented positively about their employment at the service and said there was a very strong team approach. We saw that all staff including maintenance, and housekeepers were involved with the meal service. This allowed care staff to concentrate on supporting people who needed it but also built relationships between staff and people. Comments from staff included, “We are a team, we talk and discuss work at handovers, always help each other out,” and “The management team will always help out when needed and all staff help out at mealtimes.”

During the assessment, the home was welcoming and staff visible and approachable. Our observations showed staff spent time with people and knew them well. We saw staff sit with people in different areas of the home, chatting and reading to people. Staff worked together and communicated effectively with each other to ensure all jobs were done, helping each other out if necessary.

Staff confirmed they were supported through supervision and appraisal. Key information was communicated through daily handovers and periodic staff meetings.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Feedback from staff included, “The management team are visible, door is always open and they are happy to help and advise on the floors,” and “They keep us informed of changes, and they always have time to listen, I have learnt a lot from them.”

The senior management team were committed to improvement and were open and transparent regarding the improvements made and those that were on going. We were told the focus of the service was to ensure people were safe and happy, and any learning was taken forward positively.

There were systems and processes in place to support staff development and progression within their roles. They talked of how they were supported to gain qualifications and to consider extending their role, for example to become assistant practitioners. Senior care staff were supported to be become medicine givers and received support and training. Regular supervisions, spot checks, competencies and values-based supervisions took place. The provider’s senior management visited the home regularly and provided support and supervision to the registered manager, who confirmed he attended organisational manager meetings which enabled learning across the organisation to be shared and relevant lessons learnt implemented within the home. The provider supported staff to attend external training, conferences and meet with other providers and managers to network through various forums.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

There were systems and processes to encourage and respond to feedback from people using the service, staff and external stakeholders. The registered manager and staff promoted an atmosphere where people felt able to speak up. There were resident’s meetings and surveys completed, and healthcare professionals could feedback in person or via an electronic form.

Staff were confident about raising any ideas and concerns to the provider and management team. Team meetings and supervisions were used to share ideas and suggestions as well as learning from any concerns or incidents. Staff surveys were also offered to allow staff to feedback their views on their employment.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

All staff told us they had received opportunities to attend further training and develop their knowledge and careers.

The registered manager told us staff were encouraged to contribute to the service development through regular staff meetings and supervisions. Staff said they felt valued and supported in their roles and no staff expressed any concerns regarding equality and inclusion. Staff received training on communicating effectively and diversity and equality. This supported staff to understand and uphold inclusive practices in both care delivery and in the workplace.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

Quality assurance systems were in place and used effectively to improve the service. The management team had worked hard to ensure there was robust oversight and effective governance at the service. There were computerised and paper systems and processes, to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided. Governance meetings were held regularly. These were used to monitor effectively and pick up trends/concerns early, such as repetitive falls and skin tears.

Staff told us about their duties and responsibilities; they told us how they managed risk and reported concerns to management. Managers and staff understood their roles, and were clear about quality performance, risks and regulatory requirements. There were checks and audits in place to monitor quality and safety. Action was taken when audits identified areas for improvement.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

Peoples’ records showed the service worked closely with external healthcare professionals. This included using services such as advocates, physiotherapists, chiropodists and hairdressers. One external stakeholder told, “I enjoy working with this service, lovely place to come to, staff are polite, I have no issues with this home, a manager or a senior will always greet me, to answer any queries and to give me accurate update on my clients.” The service had regular communication and visits from the local GP to discuss any concerns or health queries. Staff also contacted the GP surgery outside of scheduled calls if they had any urgent requests. We received positive feedback from health and social care professionals, all of whom talked of improvements within the service relating to communication which had resulted in more effective processes and good outcomes for people.

The provider and registered manager had created links with the local community to enhance the lives of people living at the service. This included the local church.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

People and their relatives had opportunities to feedback their views about the service and quality of the care they received. People and relatives all described the staff and management of the service as open and approachable. Staff supported people to give feedback and opportunities to drive improvements and encourage learning from any incidents which occurred. The provider and registered manager had oversight of accidents and incidents. Trends and patterns were identified and addressed. We saw example of lessons learnt following incidents which occurred within the service. For example, introduction where appropriate of crash mats and sensor alarms. Reflective meetings were held with staff to give opportunities to discuss development points to encourage improvement in practice. Learning was, where appropriate, also shared across the providers other services. The registered manager encouraged staff to speak up about positive ideas.