The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: The Haven

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Radley Road, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 3PP (01235) 521801

Provided and run by:
The Camden Society

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

3 December 2016

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection on 4 December 2016 and it was announced 24 hours beforehand to ensure that staff and records would be available during the inspection. When The Haven was last inspected in December 2015 there were three breaches of the legal requirements identified. These related to Regulation 12 Safe care and Treatment Regulation 11 Consent and Regulation 17 Good Governance. These breaches were followed up as part of our inspection

The Haven provides care and accommodation for up for six people with learning disabilities. On the days of our inspection there were five people living in the service. The provider has informed us that the service will no longer be operating from the location address after March 2017; all people and their relatives have been informed and are being supported to ensure they move to a service of their choice.

There was a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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 manager was unavailable on the day of inspection; another manager who was yet to register with the commission was in attendance instead.

At the time of inspection we checked the service's CQC rating on the provider website. The rating for the last inspection was not displayed conspicuously as required by regulations. On entering the service we also found the rating was not displayed conspicuously within the home.

The provider failed to demonstrate that they had safe and effective recruitment systems in place.

The provider did not have effective systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.

The provider had not followed the Department of Health (DH) code of practice on the prevention and control of infections. Hygiene practices within the laundry did not meet the DH guidance for the prevention and detection of infection.

Improvement was required in relation to processes for PRN (as required) medicines and medicine competency checks for staff. There were suitable arrangements in place for the safe storage and administration of medicines.

Staff had not received regular supervision; the provider had not ensured that staff performance and progress was monitored effectively and that staff had an opportunity to voice their individual views. We also found that staff training was frequently out of date.

Staffing numbers were sufficient to meet people’s needs and this ensured people were supported safely.

The staff had a clear knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. These safeguards aim to protect people living in care homes from being inappropriately deprived of their liberty. These safeguards can only be used when a person lacks the mental capacity to make certain decisions and there is no other way of supporting the person safely. Meetings had been arranged in order to enable people’s best interest to be assessed when it had been identified that they lacked the capacity to consent to their care and treatment.

People were supported by the staff to use the local community facilities and had been supported to develop skills which promoted their independence.

People sustained good health by the means of nutritious food and sufficient drinks.

People had access to healthcare professionals when required, and records demonstrated the service had made referrals when there were concerns.

There were positive and caring relationships between staff and people at the service. People praised the staff that provided their care and we received positive feedback from people’s relatives and visitors to the service.

Staff respected people’s privacy and we saw staff working with people in a kind and compassionate way when responding to their needs.

There was a complaints procedure for people, families and friends to use and compliments were also recorded.

We saw that the service took time to work with and understand people’s individual way of communicating in order that the service staff could respond appropriately to the person.

At this inspection we found five breaches of regulations.

2 December 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 2 and 4 December 2015. It was an unannounced inspection.

The Haven is registered to provide accommodation for up to five adults with learning disabilities who require personal care. At the time of the inspection there were five people living at the service.

The service did not have 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. The service had management arrangements that included a service manager and a community support leader. The service manager had recently applied to be the registered manager and this application was now with the CQC.

People told us they felt safe and were supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge to carry out their roles and responsibilities. Staff had completed safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to identify and report all concerns in relation to safeguarding people from abuse. However, staff did not always follow the homes internal safeguarding procedures.

People were not always protected from the risks associated with their care or the environment because thickeners were not always stored safely.

People received their medicines as prescribed and medicines were stored securely. However, there was no system in place to monitor the temperature of the room in which the medicine cabinet was situated.

Records showed that staff had been trained in The Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Some staff we spoke with had an understanding of the principles of the MCA. However staff we spoke with gave conflicting information about people’s capacity. Care plans did not always contain clear information that was guided by the principles of the MCA relating to people’s capacity to consent to care. People’s care records did not contain information on how decisions had been arrived at or whether people may need applications made regarding Deprivation of Liberty safeguards (DoLS). Neither did records demonstrate the least restrictive option been identified and that this would be in the best interests of the people.

People’s needs were assessed prior to admission to the service to ensure the service could meet their needs. However, information used from these assessments to create care plans was not always accurate or up to date. Care records contained details of people’s medical histories, allergies and on-going conditions. Care plans had been developed from the information people provided during the assessment process. However, peoples care records were not always completed to the same standard and some had information missing.

Accidents and incidents were documented and any actions were recorded. However, accident and incident forms were not always regularly audited to enable any trends or risks to be identified .

People’s healthcare needs were regularly monitored. People had access to health care professionals where needed, such as doctors and specialists. Concerns about people’s health had been followed up and there was evidence of this in people’s care plans.

Throughout our visit we saw people were treated in a caring and kind way and staff were friendly, polite and respectful when providing support to people. Relatives we spoke with were complimentary about the care staff provided. Staff gave people the time to express their wishes and respected the decisions they made.

We observed there were enough staff to meet their needs. During the day we observed staff were not rushed in their duties and had time to chat with people. Throughout the inspection there was a calm atmosphere and staff responded promptly to people who needed support. People were supported to avoid social isolation by engaging in a range of meaningful activities.

Staff spoke positively about the provider and the managers and were confident the management team and organisation would support them if they raised a concern.

Records relating to the recruitment of staff showed relevant checks had been completed before staff worked unsupervised at the home. These included employment references and Disclosure and Barring Service checks.

We found three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see the action we took and what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

25 June 2013

During a routine inspection

During this visit we spoke with five people who used the service and four care workers. There were five people residing at the home on the day of our visit. We looked at two outcomes that were previously non-compliant and three additional outcomes. We spoke with two people's relatives by telephone.

We found improvement in evidence that people were asked for their consent before they received care and treatment. One person told us "they always ask".

We found care plans in place that enabled care workers to support people in the way they wanted. One care worker said 'if she brings her pyjamas to me I know this means she wants to start her bedtime routine and have a bath'.

We found improvement in the way the service protected people and how care was delivered safely. One person told us 'I am safe'. One relative we spoke with told us 'I feel she is very safe'.

We found people were supported by sufficient skilled and experienced staff. One person told us 'staff come and talk to me, I like that'.

People we spoke with were happy with the service they received. One said 'it's nice here' and another said 'it's not bad". People were given support by the provider to make a comment or complaint where they needed assistance. A relative told us 'I can go to the manager but I have no complaints'.

9 July 2012

During a routine inspection

People told us that they liked the staff and were enabled to make choices around their every day care and support needs. They said they enjoyed living in the home. They told us that the staff enabled them to go out into the community if they wished.