Archived: Haven Home Care Limited

Although we found some inaccuracies in MARs during this inspection, we found the quality of recording on MARs had improved.

Haven Home Care Limited is a domiciliary care service, which provides support with shopping, domestic tasks and personal care to people living in their own home. At the time of this inspection 18 people were using the service.

The service 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.

The provider had breached the regulation relating to good governance. Effective medicines audits were still not in place to ensure people received their medicines safely. We found care workers had supported people without supervision prior to recruitment checks having been completed. We found no evidence that spot checks were carried out effectively to provide a robust check on the quality of people’s care. Essential training had lapsed for most care workers. The provider did not have documented plans to deal with emergency situations, such as a business continuity plan.

You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

People were happy with the care they received. They told us they were supported to make their own choices. One person said, “The care workers are very good. They treat me very well indeed.”

Care workers demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding and the provider’s whistle blowing procedure. They knew how to report concerns appropriately.

People received their care from a consistent and reliable team of care workers. One person told us “You can rely and depend on them.” Another person commented, “They always turn up on time. If they are ever held up they will ring me.”

People using the service were able to make their own decisions about their care needs and told us they were in control.

Care workers were well supported in their role. They received regular one to one supervision and an appraisal.

People were supported to meet their nutritional needs in line with their assessed needs. People confirmed care workers supported them to make the meals they wanted to eat.

People’s needs were assessed when they started receiving a service. This included gathering information about their particular needs and personal preferences. This information was used to develop personalised care plans. Care plans provided prompts for care workers to help ensure people received consistent care.

People knew how to complain if they were unhappy with any aspect of their care. None of the people we spoke with raised any concerns with us. One person said, “If something was worrying me I would tell them, they are alright. I have no concerns at all.”

The provider carried out regular surveys to gather people’s views of the service. Feedback from the most recent survey and previous surveys was all positive with all people stating they were happy with their care service.

The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report. This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

The service was safe. The provider had policies and procedures in place to deal with any safeguarding concerns. Staff had completed safeguarding training and had a good understanding of safeguarding issues. They were aware of the provider's whistle blowing procedure and knew how to raise any concerns they had.

Where staff had identified a potential risk, either during the initial assessment or after admission, we found that a risk assessment had been completed to ensure people were safe. For example, we found that one person was at risk of falling due to poor mobility. We saw that the provider had undertaken a falls risk assessment which identified the potential hazards and the control measures in place to manage the risk, such as ensuring the person's environment was checked for tripping hazards.

Is the service effective?

Some aspects of the service were not effective. The provider did not have a structured induction programme in place for new staff. We looked at the records for a new care worker and we found no information as to the skills and knowledge they were expected to develop in order to be competent in their caring role.

People who used the service had signed their care plans to give consent to their care. They said staff always asked them for permission before delivering any care. People commented: 'They (staff) listen to me'; 'The staff don't impose anything at all'; and, 'I say what I want to eat and what I want to do.' Family members confirmed that they had been involved in deciding their relative's care. One family member said, '(My relative) chooses where they want to go and for how long.'

Is the service caring?

The service was caring. People had care plans and had been involved in deciding what was in them. They said they were happy with the care they received and with the staff delivering their care. People's comments included: 'Very good, they (carers) know what I want'; 'I can't praise them enough'; and, 'Brilliant.'

Staff had a good understanding of the needs of the people they cared for and described how they delivered care in a way that maintained people's dignity and privacy. They gave examples of practical things they did to maintain a person's dignity, such as keeping them covered up as much as possible and closing doors when people were using the toilet. Staff said they only did as much as the person wanted them to do. One staff member told us, 'I ask (the person) which bits they can do and which bits they want us to do.'

Is the service responsive?

The service was responsive. The manager told us that care plans were changed and updated as people's needs changed or annually. The four care records we viewed had been reviewed within the past 12 months.

People who used the service told us they were asked for their views about their care and these were acted on. One person commented, '(The carer) does things as I feel they should be done.' Another person said, 'I am getting the care that I want.'

Is the service well-led?

The service was well-led. The provider undertook a six monthly quality audit. We saw from viewing the most recent audit that people were happy with the care they received. We found that 14 out of 15 people had rated the service as either 'good' or 'very good.' One person commented, 'Very happy with Haven Home Care, excellent service.' One person had rated the service 'not very good' in relation to keeping them informed. The manager told us that they had followed up these concerns.

People who used the service and family members told us they had no concerns about the care they received. People commented: 'I am very happy'; "Very good, no concerns'; 'I have no concerns at all'; and, 'The staff are very good, very professional.' Family members said: 'I have no concerns, I am really happy with the service'; 'No concerns'; 'I am very happy'; and, '(I am) really very pleased.'

The manager told us there had been no complaints made about the service and no incidents or accidents to report.

We found that people had their needs assessed and that care plans were in place. People's care was delivered in accordance with their individual plans.

We found there were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.

We found processes for the administration and management of medicines were being followed.

There was a complaints procedure in place and this was accessible to people.

We found that records within the service were accurate, reviewed regularly and easily accessible to staff, thus ensuring that people received appropriate care and support.