Archived: Havendene Residential Home

Updated 27 June 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 17 May 2017 and was unannounced.

One adult social care inspector carried out this inspection visit.

We reviewed all of the information we held about the service including statutory notifications we had received from the service. Statutory notifications are notifications of deaths and other incidents that occur within the service, which when submitted enable the Commission to monitor any issues or areas of concern.

We contacted Northumberland local authority safeguarding, contracts and commissioning teams prior to our inspection. We also contacted Healthwatch. Healthwatch is the local consumer champion for health and social care services. We used their feedback to inform the planning of this inspection.

At our visit to the service we focussed on spending time with people who lived there, speaking with staff, and observing how people were supported. We undertook an in-depth review of care plans for four people to check their care records matched with what staff told us about their care and support needs. We reviewed the medicines records of five people.

During our inspection we spent time and spoke with ten people who lived at the service, four care staff, the registered providers, the cook and activity co-ordinator. We observed support in communal areas. We also looked at records that related to how the service was managed, looked at staff records and looked around all areas of the home including people’s bedrooms with their permission.

Updated 27 June 2017

The inspection took place on 17 May 2017 and was unannounced. This meant staff did not know we were visiting.

We last inspected the service on 30 June 2016 to follow up concerns from the previous inspection in March 2016 where we issued warning notices in relation to the safe, effective and well-led domains of the report and were rated as Requires Improvment. At the inspection in June 2016 we found that the requirements stipulated in the warning notices had been met. On this visit we found improvements made to the safe, effective and well-led domains had been sustained and were now rated as Good.

Havendene Residential Home provides residential care for up to 25 older people, some of whom were living with dementia. At the time of this inspection there were 18 people living at the home.

The service had a registered manager in place who was on leave at the time of our visit. 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 registered providers were in attendance during the course of our inspection and we saw they were fully involved in all aspects of the day to day running of the home.

Staff and the registered providers understood their responsibilities with regard to safeguarding and staff had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults. People we spoke with told us they felt safe at the home.

Where potential risks had been identified an assessment had been completed to keep people as safe as possible. Accidents and incidents were logged and investigated with appropriate action taken to help keep people safe. Health and safety checks were completed and procedures were in place to deal with emergency situations.

Medicines were managed safely. We saw medicines being administered to people in a safe and caring way. People confirmed they received their medicines at the correct time and they were always made available to them.

We found there were sufficient care staff deployed to provide people’s care in a timely manner. We found that recruitment checks were carried out to ensure that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Staff received the support and training they required. Records confirmed training, supervisions and appraisals were up to date and pre-planned for the future. Staff told us they were supported to develop themselves personally and professionally by the home’s management.

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 supported this practice.

People gave positive feedback about the meals they were served at the home. People received the support they needed with eating and drinking. We met with the cook who was trained in the support of people with nutritional needs. Some people had been referred to external healthcare professionals for additional specialist support, for example those with diabetes.

People were supported by care staff who were aware of how to protect their privacy and dignity and show them respect at all times. We saw that the service worked to uphold people’s rights and supported open discussion on issues relating to equality and diversity in a pro-active and caring manner.

People’s needs were assessed before they came to live at the service. Personalised care plans were developed and regularly reviewed to support staff in caring for people the way they preferred.

An activity coordinator provided a wide range of activities and support for people to access the community. They also held regular discussion groups and meetings where people could raise any issues or concerns. The discussion groups that had taken place focussed on people’s rights and choices and issues of equality and diversity such as voting, anti-discrimination and the deprivation of liberty safeguards.

People and staff were very positive about the management of the home and we saw that the registered providers had a daily presence at the service. Many staff had worked at the service for a number of years and this added to the feeling of a caring, well-run home.

The registered provider had an effective complaints procedure in place and people who used the service and family members were aware of how to make a complaint. Feedback systems were in place to obtain people’s views about the quality of the service.

The service had good links with the local community and local organisations.