You are here

Archived: Explora Haven Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 March 2015

We undertook an announced inspection of Explora Haven on 15 January 2015. We told the provider two days before our visit that we would be coming. Explora Haven is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care in people’s homes and buddy services to people with learning disabilities, younger adults, children and older people. Buddy services included accompanying people to activities and outings. The services they provide include personal care, housework and assistance with medication. During the day of our visit the service provided care and support to 30 people, approximately five people received buddy services which did not include personal care.

At our last inspection in March 2014 the service was meeting the regulations inspected.

There is a registered manager in place. 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.

Safeguarding adults from abuse procedures were robust and care workers understood how to safeguard the people they supported. The registered manager and care workers had received training on safeguarding adults and were able to explain the possible signs of abuse as well as the correct procedure to follow if they had concerns.

Safe practices for administering medicines were followed.

We saw that there were policies, procedures and information available in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure that people who could not make decisions for themselves were protected. Staff spoken with demonstrated good understanding of the MCA and DoLS and how to obtain consent from people who used the service.

People and their relatives were involved in decisions about their care and how their needs were met. People had care plans in place that reflected their assessed needs.

Safe recruitment procedures ensured that only staff that were suitable working with vulnerable people were employed. There was an induction programme for new staff, which prepared them to do their role. Staff were provided with a range of training to help them carry out their duties. Staff received regular supervision and appraisal to support them to meet people’s needs. There were enough care workers employed in the service to meet people’s needs.

People were supported to eat and drink where required. People were supported effectively with their health needs. People were involved in making decisions about what kind of support they wanted.

Staff and people who used the service felt able to speak with the registered manager and provided feedback on the service. They knew how to make complaints and there was an effective complaints policy and procedure in place. We found complaints were dealt with appropriately and in accordance with the policy.

The service carried out regular audits to monitor the quality of the service and to plan improvements. Where concerns were identified action plans were put in place to rectify these.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 March 2015

The service was safe. There were processes in place to help make sure people were protected from the risk of abuse and staff were aware of safeguarding adults and children procedures.

Risk assessments for people who used the service and staff were undertaken and written risk management plans were in place.

There were processes for recording accidents and incidents.

Staffing levels to meet the needs of people who used the service were appropriately monitored and care workers were vetted which ensured they were safe to work with vulnerable people.

Appropriate medicines training and medicines administration procedures ensured that people who used the service could be confident to receive their medicines if required safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 March 2015

The service was effective. Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. Staff received regular training to ensure they had up to date information to undertake their roles and responsibilities.

They were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how to obtain consent from people who used the service.

People were supported to eat and drink according to their plan of care.

People’s health care needs were met and records documented the support required from care staff.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 March 2015

The service was caring. People who used the service told us they liked the staff and looked forward to them coming to support them.

Staff provided respectful care and were aware of people’s privacy.

People had opportunities of getting involved in making decisions about their care and the support they received.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 March 2015

The service was responsive. People and their families were involved in decisions about their care. Staff understood how to respond to people’s changing needs.

People knew how to make a complaint. People were confident that their concerns would be addressed.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 March 2015

The service was well-led. The service had an open and transparent culture and staff reported they felt confident discussing any issues with the registered manager.

Systems were in place to ensure the quality of the service people received was assessed and monitored.