Background to this inspection
Updated
8 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 is 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.
The inspection took place on 15 May 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector.
Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the PIR and other information we held about the service. This included past reports and notifications. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.
We spoke with three people living at the service. Not everyone we met who was living at Harbour House was able to give us their verbal views of the care and support they received due to their health needs. We looked around the premises and observed care practices. We spoke with three care staff, the registered manager, the operations manager and the provider. We spoke with two visitors during the inspection and three families after the inspection.
We looked at care documentation for three people, medicines records for 19 people, two staff files, training records and other records relating to the management of the service.
Updated
8 June 2017
This unannounced comprehensive inspection took place on 15 May 2017. The last inspection took place on 28 May 2015. The service was meeting the requirements of the regulations at that time.
Harbour House is a care home which offers care and support for up to 20 predominantly older people. At the time of the inspection there were 19 people living at the service. Some of these people were living with dementia.
People received their medicines as prescribed. People who self administered their own medicines had been assessed to ensure they were competent to do this. The records held relating to some medicines were not always accurate. We have made a recommendation about this in the report.
The service was comfortable, clean and well maintained. People’s bedrooms were personalised to reflect people’s individual tastes. There were no malodours at the service.
People told us they were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Families were complimentary about the staff and management. Comments included, “Well feel truly blessed to have found this place” and “This place is fabulous, staff are wonderful.” People were complimentary about the food and had recently requested an addition to the menu which had been provided.
Staff were supported by a system of induction, training, supervision and appraisals. People were supported by staff who knew how to recognise abuse and how to respond to concerns. Staff received training relevant for their role and there were good opportunities for on-going training and support and development. Staff meetings were held regularly. These provided an opportunity for staff to air any concerns or suggestions they had regarding the running of the service.
The service had identified the minimum numbers of staff required to meet people’s needs and these were being met. People and visitors told us they felt there was always someone available to assist when needed. However, staff reported being “Hectic” and “Often still doing washes at midday.” The service had a call bell system which recorded response times. This showed people did not have to wait more than a few minutes for assistance when required.
The service had recently started using an electronic records system. Care plans had been transferred on to the system over the two weeks prior to this inspection. Training had been provided to all staff. The paper copies of people’s care plans remained available at the time of this inspection for reference during this transition period. Risks in relation to people’s daily life were assessed and planned for to minimise the risk of harm. Some risk assessments still needed to be transferred on to the electronic system but the paper copies had been recently reviewed.
People's rights were protected because staff acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The principles of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were understood and applied correctly. The policies held by the service were appropriate and provided up to date guidance to staff. Appropriate applications had been made for authorisations which had not yet been assessed. People were support 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 had access to meaningful activities. An activity co ordinator, who was shared with another service in the Anson Care group, arranged regular events for people. These included musical entertainment, arts and crafts. There was an opportunity for people to go out into the local community and meet up with people living at other services in the group.
The registered manager was supported by two deputy managers. There was regular contact from the operations managers and the provider. The registered manager worked at the service during the week and provided care as needed. They had a good rapport with the people living at the service, staff and families who visited. People were complimentary about the registered manager.