Archived: Rest Haven Charitable Home

Updated 12 December 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was 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 21 October 2018 and was unannounced. One adult social care inspector carried out this inspection. Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included previous contact regarding the service and notifications we had received. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

We used a range of different methods to help us understand people’s experience of the service. During the inspection we spoke with nine people who lived in the home and we conducted a SOFI (Short Observational Framework for Inspection). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who are unable to talk with us. We spoke with four care staff and a senior member of staff on the day of our inspection and the registered manager the week following our inspection.

We saw a range of records relating to people’s care and support and looked at three people’s care records in detail. We also looked at staff recruitment, training, supervision and appraisal records for three members of care staff and looked at records relating to the management of the service, including quality audits. We also reviewed how the service supported people with their medicines.

Updated 12 December 2018

This comprehensive inspection took place on 21 October 2018 and was unannounced. The last time we inspected this service on 18 and 26 October 2017 we completed a focussed inspection, looking at the Safe, Effective and Well-Led key questions. After that focussed inspection we rated the service ‘Good’ overall but ‘Requires Improvement’ in the Safe key question. During that inspection we had identified that safety concerns were not always being reported as required and medicines not always being properly managed. During this inspection in October 2018 we found that sufficient action had been taken to improve on these areas. We identified some concerns with regards to the environment which meant Safe was rated ‘Requires Improvement’ once more. All other key questions were rated ‘Good’ which meant the home was rated ‘Good’ overall.

Rest Haven Charitable Home (referred to in this report as Rest Haven) is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Rest Haven accommodates up to 34 people in one adapted building. At the time of our inspection there were 30 people living in the home.

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.

During the inspection we identified two unrestricted windows which could pose harm to people. We raised this with the registered manager and they confirmed those had been secured immediately following our inspection. We also raised concerns about some uneven flooring which could potentially be a risk to people. The registered manager took immediate action following our inspection to add signage to draw attention to it and reduce the risks.

People praised the staff and management of Rest Haven and told us they received high quality care. Comments included, “I wouldn’t go anywhere else”, “They’ve got very good staff. The staff really know what they’re doing”, “They will do everything they can oblige. We can do what we want” and “I would like to stay here for the rest of my life.” People were held in high regard and had a good quality of life. People had freedom to make choices and were supported to be independent. Staff treated people with respect and kindness.

People who lived in Rest Haven were protected from risks relating to their health, mobility, medicines, nutrition and possible abuse. Staff had assessed individual risks to people and had taken action to seek guidance and minimise identified risks. Staff knew how to recognise possible signs of abuse. Where accidents and incidents had taken place, these had been reviewed and action had been taken to reduce the risks of reoccurrence. Staff supported people to take their medicines safely and staffs’ knowledge relating to the administration of medicines were regularly checked. Staff told us they felt comfortable raising concerns.

Action had been taken to ensure staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005, the principles of the Act and how to apply these. We found people were involved in all aspects of their care and their consent had been sought prior to any care being delivered. Where people had been unable to make a particular decision at a particular time, their capacity had been assessed and best interests decisions had taken place and been recorded. Where people were being deprived of their liberty for their own safety the registered manager had made Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) applications to the local authority.

Recruitment procedures were in place to help ensure only people of good character were employed by the home. Staff underwent Disclosure and Barring Service (police record) checks before they started work. Staff knew how to recognise possible signs of abuse in order to protect people. Staffing numbers at the home were sufficient to meet people’s needs. Staff had the competencies and information they required in order to meet people’s needs. Staff received sufficient training as well as regular supervision and appraisal.

People, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals were asked for their feedback and suggestions in order to improve the service. People were provided with enough food and fluids to meet their needs. Care was taken to ensure people enjoyed their food and it met their personal preferences.

We found that, although staff knew people and their preferences well, little person-centred information was available within people’s care plans. The registered manager agreed this was an area for improvement.

People had access to activities which met their needs but it was agreed these could be further developed. People did not have individual activity plans in place. This was an area the registered manager was in the process of developing and we therefore made a recommendation regarding this.

There was open and effective management at the service led by the registered manager. Staff felt supported and valued. An audit system was in place to monitor the quality of the service people received. Records were clear, well organised and up-to-date.

People and staff felt able to raise concerns or make a complaint. They were confident their concerns would be taken seriously. People told us they didn't have any complaints. Where complaints had been received they had been managed in line with the company policy.

Further information is in the detailed findings below