Little Haven

People’s experience of the service and what we found

People gave us positive feedback about the quality of care they received. People told us they liked the staff who supported them and had helped them to meet their needs.

The provider had effective systems in place to manage people’s medicines. The provider monitored the service and the quality of care, to ensure care was delivered in a person-centred way.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published, 11 April 2018).

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns following a Direct Monitoring Activity (DMA). We had concerns about learning from incidents, good governance, leadership, openness and transparency and learning and improvement. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks.

We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from this concern.

We undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only. For those key question not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Little Haven on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow Up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

Little Haven accommodates up to 11 people in one adapted building. The care home specialises in providing care to people living with mental health conditions. This inspection took place on the 7 December 2017.

At the last inspection on 24 September 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection, the service remained Good.

The service has 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 registered provider had established and embedded safeguarding procedures. Staff understood the safeguarding processes to guide them to keep people safe from harm and abuse. Staff knew how to identify abuse and report them to the registered manager and the relevant social care services.

Staff continued to identify risks to people’s health and well-being. Risks to people were managed because these were mitigated which reduced the risk of recurrence.

Medicines continued to be managed in a safe way. Systems for the administration, ordering and storage of medicines continued to be safe for people. Infection control procedures were in place at the service. This reduced the risk of infection to people.

Enough staff were on duty to support people in a safe way. Staff continued to be supported through training, appraisals and supervisions.

People continued to give staff their consent to the care and support they received. Staff understood how to care for people in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards framework to avoid unlawful deprivation of their liberty. People remained able to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Food and drink provided continued to be sufficient to meet people’s choices and nutritional needs. People’s health and well-being needs were managed through health and social care services.

Staff were respectful to people. People told us staff treated them with compassion and kindness and ensured their dignity and privacy continued to be respected.

Assessments continued to be used to ensure people’s needs were identified and recorded and an appropriate plan in place to meet them.

The registered provider maintained a complaints system at the service. People could complain about the care and support they received.

The registered manager continued to provide support to the service. Staff we spoke with were satisfied with their job and the support they received.

The registered manager continued to inform the Care Quality Commission of incidents that occurred at the service. The service continued to be monitored and reviewed to ensure it provided good quality care to people.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with three of the seven people using the service, their relatives, two of the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe living at the service. Staffing levels were adequate and staff were trained and competent in their roles. Staff knew how to respond to emergencies and there was support available 24 hours a day. There were contingency plans for people in the event of emergency.

Assessments were undertaken to identify any risks to people who used the service and actions were taken to address them.

Is the service effective?

People were involved in the assessment of their care needs and in developing their support plans. These were tailored to reflect their individual needs and the outcomes they wanted to achieve. There was effective joint working with other health and social care professionals.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by attentive staff. Staff showed patience in the way they supported people. They spoke to people with respect and we saw positive interactions taking place. People told us that staff were nice and kind. People commented that they liked living there and liked the staff. Staff spent time with people and engaged them in activities.

Is the service responsive?

People were regularly offered a range of activities in and outside the service. Staff understood the individual needs of the people who used the service and supported them accordingly. Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed monthly to reflect changes in people's needs.

Is the service well-led?

There were a range of quality assurance systems to assess and monitor the quality of service provided. The registered manager consulted with people who used the service, their relatives and staff using various methods, such as surveys and meetings to obtain their views on service delivery. The home worked closely with other agencies.