We carried out a review of the data available to us about Haven House on 6 July 2023. 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 Haven House, you can give feedback on this service.
This service was set up and registered prior to Building the Right Support and Registering the Right Support and it is not the size of service we would be registering if the application to register was made to CQC today. This is because it does not conform to the guidance as it is very difficult for larger services for people with learning disabilities to meet the standards. However, we found the service was supporting people living at Haven House to live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
Systems were in place to manage risks to people’s safety. Potential risks to people were assessed and managed appropriately. Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed in order to reduce the risk of them reoccurring. People received their medicines safely and in line with their prescriptions. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff and did not have to wait for their care. Staff had been recruited appropriately and had received relevant training so that they were able to support people with their individual care and support needs. The environment was clean, homely and well-maintained. Aids and adaptations were in place to meet people’s needs. There was a contingency plan in place to help ensure people’s care would not be disrupted in the event of an emergency.
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’s nutritional needs were met and a choice of food and drinks were available. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals and any guidance provided by them was followed. People’s needs were assessed prior to them moving into the service to ensure the staff had the skills to support them.
People were treated with kindness and compassion. People's rights to privacy were respected by the staff who supported them and their dignity was maintained. Staff knew people well and were aware of people’s individual communication styles. People were encouraged to take part in daily living tasks and encouraged to develop their independent living skills. Visitors were made to feel welcome and people were supported to maintain relationships with those who were important to them.
People and their relatives were involved in decisions about the care. The service responded to people’s changing needs in a timely manner and care plans were regularly reviewed. People had access to a variety of activities both within the community and when spending time at home. Where appropriate, people were supported to make decisions regarding the care they wanted at the end of their life. There was a complaints policy in place which was displayed in an easy read format. There had been no complaints received within the last year.
People using the service, their relatives and staff were confident about approaching the registered manager and provider if they needed to. Effective auditing systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service. The views of people and their relatives on the quality of the service were sought. There was a positive culture throughout the service. Staff felt supported in their roles and shared a common ethos and values.
Further information is in the detailed findings below
The inspection took place on 13 April 2016 and was unannounced.
The home had a registered manager. 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.
There were sufficient staff deployed in the home. Staffing numbers were flexible to ensure people’s individual needs were met. There were enough staff to enable people to go out and to support the people who remained at home.
Staff had a clear understanding of how to safeguard people and knew what steps they should take if they suspected abuse. There was an effective recruitment process followed which helped ensure that only suitable staff were employed.
Risk assessments were in place and reviewed regularly to ensure people were supported safely. Environmental risks were appropriately controlled and routine maintenance and checks were completed.
Medicines were managed well and records showed that people received their medicines in accordance with prescription guidance. People were supported to maintain good health and had regular access to a range of healthcare professionals.
People told us that the quality of food and portion size was good. People were supported to maintain a healthy diet. Where people required support to eat, this was provided in a dignified and unhurried way.
Staff received necessary training and support to enable them to do their jobs. There were monitoring tools in place to ensure that training, supervisions and appraisals were kept up to date.
We saw positive interactions between staff and people. Staff had a good understanding of people’s legal rights and took time to gain consent from people.
Each person had an individualised plan of care which gave details of their preferences and needs. Staff knew people well and approached them with kindness. People’s dignity and privacy was respected. Systems were in place to support individual communication styles.
There were a range of activities for people to participate in which were personalised to people’s individual preferences. People were supported to maintain relationships which were important to them and relatives told us they were made to feel welcome when they visited.
People and their relatives spoke highly of the registered manager who they said was approachable. Feedback was sought from people regarding the quality of the service and action was taken to address any concerns raised. A complaints policy was in place and people told us they would feel comfortable in raising any concerns.
The home was calm and relaxed and it smelt fresh and clean. The people who lived there said that they were happy and that they enjoyed the activities at the day centres they attended and enjoyed painting, going for walks and shopping. One person we spoke with said that 'staff are not too bossy and they give me clean clothes every day'. Another person said that they would be 'visiting family at the weekend' and that they 'like it at the home and have nice friends'.
The staff were committed, well trained and professional. One member of staff said 'I am so proud of the work we do here and it is a happy working environment'. They said that the managers were supportive and it was a 'rewarding place to work'.
We asked how people and their relatives were involved in various aspects of their care, and were told that such involvement was actively encouraged. We were also told that people were encouraged to make and express choices, and to engage with the local community.
We looked at the care planning process, and saw that this was comprehensive and reviewed on a regular basis. People and their relatives told us that they were very happy with the level and quality of their care.
We asked about safeguarding and were told that all staff had received appropriate safeguarding training. Staff were also able to describe different types of abuse and knew how to raise concerns regarding abuse with management.
We looked at staffing levels and the training and qualifications of staff members, and were satisfied that there were enough and appropriately qualified and trained staff to provide a good level of service.
We looked at the way the service was assessed and monitored, and were provided with details of regular quality assurance audits, survey information from people who used the service, and details of the complaints procedures.