Archived: The Haven

Updated 10 March 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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.

This inspection took place on 12 February 2016, was unannounced and carried out by one inspector.

We gathered and reviewed information about the service before the inspection. We examined previous inspection reports and notifications sent to us about incidents and events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law.

We observed interactions and spoke with three people, about their experience of the service. We spoke with the manager assisting the inspection, and one staff member. We asked four health and social care professionals for their views of the service.

We spent time looking at records, policies and procedures, complaint and incident and accident monitoring systems. We looked at two people’s care files, one staff record files, the staff training programme, the staff rota and medicine records.

At the previous inspection on 20 January 2014, the service had met the standards of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.

Updated 10 March 2016

We carried out this inspection on the 12 February 2016 and it was unannounced.

The Haven provides care and accommodation to up to four adults with a learning disability. People had a variety of complex needs including mental and physical health needs and behaviours that may challenge. There were three people using the service at the time of our inspection. The registered provider DGSM Your Choice, a charity which had recently become a subsidiary of MCCH. We found that changes in documentation was taking place as MCCH systems were being adopted.

People had a limited ability to verbally communicate with us or engage directly in the inspection process. People demonstrated that they were happy in their home by showing warmth to the staff that were supporting them. Staff were attentive and communicated with people in a warm and friendly manner. Staff were available throughout the day, and responded quickly to people’s requests for care and support. We observed staff supporting people with their daily activities.

A registered manager was not employed at the service. 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. A registered manager from another service owned by the registered provider assisted with the inspection process on the day of the inspection. They had been the registered manager. They had recently de-registered to register with another service owned by the registered provider, but were still overseeing the service. They told us that a registered manager of another service owned by the registered provider was due to start work at The Haven on the 1 April 2016.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. Restrictions imposed on people were only considered after their ability to make individual decisions had been assessed as required under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) Code of Practice. The manager assisting the inspection understood when an application should be made. Decisions people made about their care or medical treatment were dealt with lawfully and fully recorded.

Staff had been trained to recognise and respond to the signs of abuse. Discussions with them confirmed that they knew the action to take in the event of any suspicion of abuse. Staff understood the whistle blowing policy and how to use it. They were confident they could raise any concerns with the registered provider or outside agencies if this was needed.

There were enough staff with the skills required to meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited using procedures designed to protect people from the employment of unsuitable staff. Staff were trained to meet people’s needs and were supported through regular supervision and an annual appraisal so they were supported to carry out their roles.

Staff respected people in the way they addressed them and helped them to move around the service. Staff respected people and we saw several instances of a kindly touch or a joke and conversation as drinks or the lunch was served and at other times during the day.

Staff were knowledgeable about the needs and requirements of people using the service. Staff involved people in planning their own care in formats that they were able to understand, for example pictorial formats. Staff supported them in making arrangements to meet their health needs.

Medicines were managed, stored, disposed of and administered safely. People received their medicines when they needed them and as prescribed.

People were provided with food and fluids that met their needs and preferences. Menus offered variety and choice.

There were risk assessments in place for the environment, and for each individual person who received care. Assessments identified people’s specific needs, and showed how risks could be minimised. People were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

There were systems in place to review accidents and incidents and make any relevant improvements as a result.

Management investigated and responded to people’s complaints and relatives/advocates said they felt able to raise any concerns with staff.

People were given individual support to take part in their preferred hobbies and interests.

There were systems in place to obtain people’s views about the quality of the service and the care they received. People were listened to and their views were taken into account in the way the service was run.