You are here

Harbour Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 1 April 2020

About the service

Harbour is a residential care home that provides personal care and support for up to six people with a learning disability, autism or who have complex needs associated with their mental health. At the time of the inspection there were four people living at the service.

Harbour was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People received individualised care and support from staff who knew them well. People told us they felt safe and liked living at Harbour. One person said, "I do feel safe living here now, it’s a much nicer place to live.”

We found the service had made a number of significant improvements in all areas over the twelve-month period since the last inspection, however some improvements were still required.

Quality assurance and governance systems were in place to assess, monitor, and improve the quality and safety of the services provided. However, we found the systems in place were process driven and were not undertaken robustly, and as such had not identified the issues we found at this inspection. This meant they were ineffective and did not always drive the necessary improvement.

Harbour had been developed and designed prior to Building the Right Support and Registering the Right Support guidance being published, we found it followed some of these values and principles. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

Whilst we did not find people were being disadvantaged, people were not always supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests.

People were not always protected from the risk of avoidable harm. We found where some risks had been identified, it was unclear what action had been taken to mitigate those risks and keep people safe. For example, in relation to the management of homely remedies and the environment.

Other risks were well managed. For example, were risks had been identified in relation to people’s complex care and/or health needs, records demonstrated action had been taken to minimise these.

People, staff and relatives felt there were enough staff on duty to support people and keep them safe. However, we were unable to tell from the rota if there were sufficient staff on duty with the right skills to meet people's needs. We have recommended the provider reviews staffing levels.

People were protected by safe recruitment processes. Systems were in place to ensure staff were recruited safely and were suitable to be supporting people who might potentially be vulnerable by their circumstances.

People's privacy and dignity was respected, and their independence promoted. People had access to healthcare professionals when required and were supported to maintain a balanced healthy diet.

People’s medicines were stored safely and staff had received training in the safe administration of medicines and were having their competency regularly assessed.

People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that was focused on them having opportunities to gain new skills and become more independent.

People, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals had confidence in the registered manager and told us the service was well managed. One health car

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 1 April 2020

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 1 April 2020

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 1 April 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 1 April 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 1 April 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.