You are here

Reports


Review carried out on 8 July 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Forest Haven on 8 July 2021. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Forest Haven, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 30 May 2018

During a routine inspection

We last inspected this service in March 2016 where it was rated ‘good’ overall. This inspection took place on 30 May 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection as it is a small service for adults with a learning disability who are often out during the day. We needed to be sure people would be in during our inspection.

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

Forest haven can accommodate up to five people. At the time of our inspection four people were living in the home. The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

The service was safe and people were protected from harm. Support workers were knowledgeable about safeguarding adults from abuse and what to do if they had any concerns and how to report them. Safeguarding training was given to all staff.

Risk assessments were thorough and personalised. Support workers knew what to do in an emergency situation.

Staffing levels were meeting the needs of the people who used the service and support workers demonstrated they had the relevant knowledge to support people with their care.

Recruitment practices were safe and records confirmed this.

Medicines were managed and administered safely and audited on a weekly basis.

Newly recruited support workers received an induction and shadowed more experienced members of staff. Training for support workers was provided on a regular basis and updated when relevant. Support workers told us the quality of training was good.

Support workers demonstrated an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and how they obtained consent from people on a daily basis. Consent was recorded in people's care plans.

People were supported with maintaining a balanced diet and the people who used the service chose their meals and these were provided in line with their preferences.

People were supported to have access to healthcare services and receive on-going support. Referrals to healthcare professionals were made appropriately and a multi-disciplinary approach was adopted to support people.

Positive relationships were formed between support workers and the people who used the service and staff demonstrated how they knew the people they cared for well. People who used the service and their relatives told us support workers were caring and treated them with respect.

Care plans were detailed and contained relevant information about people who used the service and their needs such as their preferences and communication needs.

Concerns and complaints were listened to and records confirmed this.

People who used the service, their relatives and support workers spoke highly of the registered manager and told us they felt supported by them.

Quality assurance practices were robust and taking place regularly.

Inspection carried out on 2 March 2016

During a routine inspection

We inspected Forest Haven on 2 March 2016. This was an announced inspection. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location was a small care home for adults who are often out during the day and we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

Forest Haven is a care home providing accommodation and support with personal care for people with learning disabilities. The home is registered for five people. At the time of the inspection they were providing personal care and support to four people.

There was not a registered manager at the service at the time of our inspection. The manager in place at the time of our visit was still in the process of completing registration with the Care Quality Commission. 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.

The provider had systems in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff understood how to keep people safe and knew the people they were supporting very well. People’s finances were managed and audited regularly by staff. People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

There were enough staff to keep people safe. Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place to make sure suitable staff worked with people who used the service. Staff were skilled and experienced to meet people’s needs because they received appropriate training, supervision and appraisal. The service met the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards.

Care was personalised and delivered to a good standard. People received good support to make sure their nutritional and health needs were appropriately met. People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care needs.

The service had good management and leadership. The provider had a system to monitor and assess the quality of service provision. Safety checks were carried out around the service and any safety issues were reported and dealt with promptly.

Inspection carried out on 12 December 2013

During a routine inspection

We talked to staff and observed their interaction with people where this was possible. Staff that we spoke to understood the importance of demonstrating dignity and respect in the delivery of care and support at all times. Picture based and electronic tools were used to ensure that people were involved in decisions about their care and to obtain people�s consent.

People�s needs were assessed prior to starting the service, support plans helped to enhance people�s lives through promoting independence. Additional capacity was available through an autism practitioner and this was helping to support staff as they developed a range of different ways to communicate with people based on individual needs.

People were protected from the risk of abuse and neglect and the service had taken appropriate action to minimise risk to people. Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of care, but managers had not recieved any feedback from questionnaires sent to stakeholders, people or family carers. The provider might like to note the need to ensure they actively obtain feedback and that arrangements were more coherent and robust, so there was a clearer ongoing picture of performance, quality and service improvement.