You are here

Havendene Residential Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 26 January 2019

This was the first inspection of the service since it was registered by new providers in March 2018. An unannounced visit took place on 4 December 2018 so the provider and staff did not know we were coming. A second visit took place on 6 December 2018 which was announced.

Havendene is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Havendene has accommodation for up to 25 people in one adapted building, including two shared rooms. The home is a former vicarage and the accommodation is over two floors. There were 18 people living here at the time of this inspection, including older people with learning disabilities, physical disabilities or living with dementia.

There was registered manager in place but they were not present during this inspection. An acting manager had been employed to cover the absence of the registered manager. 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.

At this inspection we found the provider had breached two regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. Practices in relation to bedrooms fire doors, laundry door, food safety and medicines storage were not always fully safe. The provider’s quality assurance systems had not always been operated effectively to monitor the safety of the service and to ensure compliance with the regulations.

This is the first time the service has been rated as Requires Improvement overall. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

All the people and relatives we spoke with felt the home was a safe and comfortable place to live. Staff were clear about how to recognise and report any suspicions of abuse. The home was clean and odour-free.

The provider carried out checks to make sure only suitable staff were employed. Some staff had worked at Havendene for many years but had not had any recruitment refresher checks taken up since they were appointed. We have made a recommendation about this.

People told us they were happy with the care and felt there were enough staff to assist them. Staff had essential training in health and safety and care. However, they had not had supervision sessions for most of the year. The acting manager was addressing this.

People’s consent and permission was sought before staff carried out any care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service did not always support this practice. For example, where people were subject to any restrictions to keep them safe, such as lap straps on wheelchairs, this had not always been recorded as being in their best interests. The acting manager was addressing this.

Before people moved to the home their needs were assessed to make sure the home could provide the right care. Staff worked well with other health care professionals and people were supported to access health services.

Relatives and health professionals said the staff responded quickly to any changes in people’s well-being. People said the meals were very good. Staff encouraged people to eat and drink enough and they had choices about where to dine.

The building was a converted vicarage. Although it was warm and comfortable it had narrow, dim corridors and few design features to help people living with dementia. We have made a recommendation about this.

People, relatives and visitors said the staff were caring and kind. There were good relationships between people and

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 26 January 2019

The service was not always safe.

Fire doors, laundry door, food safety and medicine storage were not always managed safely.

People felt safe and staff knew how to report concerns.

People told us staff were available when they needed them.


Requires improvement

Updated 26 January 2019

The service was not fully effective.

Staff had not had supervision for much of the year. Staff received training but training records were not fully up to date.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s rights but had not always recorded decisions that were made in their best interests.

People enjoyed the food and their nutritional needs were met.

Health care professionals said the staff supported people effectively.



Updated 26 January 2019

The service was caring.

People and relatives felt staff were kind, caring and friendly.

People were encouraged to make choices and to remain as independent as possible.

People were treated with respect and their dignity was upheld.



Updated 26 January 2019

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care that met their specific needs.

There was a good range of in-house and community activities for people to participate in to support their social care needs.

The service had a complaints procedure in place and people felt they were listened to.


Requires improvement

Updated 26 January 2019

The service was not fully well led.

The provider did not yet have an effective monitoring system to ensure sustained quality of the service.

There was a registered manager in post. They were not present at the time of the inspection. An acting manager was managing the service in the manager's absence.

People, visitors and staff said they acting manager was open and approachable. They felt improvements were starting to be made to the service.