• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Explora Haven

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Millennium Business Centre, 3 Humber Trading Estate, Humber Road, London, NW2 6DW

Provided and run by:
Broadways Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

15 January 2015

During a routine inspection

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.

11 March 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this inspection to check if the provider had complied with a compliance action from a previous inspection of the service. We spoke with the registered manager and nominated individual. We examined the records of people who used the service and staff records to make a judgement as to whether the provider was meeting Outcome 21: Records and compliant with Regulation 20 (Health and Social Care Act 2008 Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.

At this inspection we were satisfied that the service had suitable arrangements in place to ensure that people were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because appropriate records and information related to the care of people were well maintained.

Care records of people contained essential details of assessments. These assessments included information such as skin condition, risk of falls and how many staff were required for transfers. The care records contained care plans signed by people or their representatives to indicate their agreement.

The recruitment records of staff contained essential information such as two references, evidence of identity, induction, training and support provided. This ensured that staff were suitable for their jobs and able to care for people.

12 December 2013

During a routine inspection

The agency was newly registered and at the time of this inspection it had only a small number of people who used the service. We spoke with one person who used the service and relatives of three people who used the service. All of them informed us that staff treated people with respect and dignity and they were satisfied with the services provided.

People who used the service had been assessed and their choices and preferences were noted. Care plans had been prepared with the involvement of people who used the service and their representatives. Staff we spoke with were aware of the needs of people and the care to be provided. The care provided was closely monitored by the manager.

The agency had an appropriate recruitment policy and procedure. There was evidence that staff had been carefully recruited. The recruitment records contained references, criminal records disclosures and other essential documentation.

The agency had a policy and procedure for safeguarding adults. Care staff could provide examples of what constituted abuse and knew how to respond to allegations or incidents of abuse. The results of a recent survey indicated that people who responded were satisfied with the services provided.

Some assessments were not sufficiently comprehensive and did not contain all essential information such as skin condition, risk of falls and mobility and handling needs together with any action needed to minimise risks identified.