We inspected Havelock House on the 20 July 2016.Havelock House Nursing Home provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 27 older people, who require personal support and for those that have nursing needs, including poor mobility, strokes, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, and people who were receiving end of life care and who live with dementia. Havelock House Nursing Home also provides respite care for those people who need short term care provision. The maximum amount of people to be accommodated was 24. There were 22 people living in the home during our inspection.Havelock House is a detached older style building with accessible gardens to the rear, suitable for wheel chair users. Accommodation is provided over two floors with communal areas on the ground floor.
Havelock House is owned by Havelock House Nursing Home. We last inspected the home in November 2014 and no concerns were identified.
There was no registered manager in post. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. There is an acting manager who is due to submit an application to be registered with the CQC.
People commented they felt safe living at Havelock House. One person told us, “I feel comfortable and cared for.” Another person said, “I came here as I wasn’t safe at home, I’m very safe and happy here.”
Whilst care plans and risk assessments for people were in place, not all were fully reflective of peoples’ individual specific health needs. However when we spoke with the staff, they knew people very well and were knowledgeable about the people they cared for. The documentation had not impacted on safe outcomes for people at this time. A new clinical lead had been employed and they were currently reviewing the care plans and risk assessments. There was at present a lack of meaningful activities for people to engage with. There were people who told us, “Not a lot going on at present.” People who remained in their bedrooms and on continuous bed rest lacked a clear rationale for that specific decision and there was no guidance for how staff could meet their social needs on a day to day basis.
People and staff felt staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of the people they supported. One person told us, “Always lots of staff around.” A staff member said, “We are well staffed and a good team, I don’t feel pressured and I can do my job well.”
Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and treated them with respect and protected their dignity when supporting them.
There was a focus on providing care and support that focused on the needs of the person whilst supporting their individuality and identity. However there was a lack of meaningful activities provided to ensure people’s social and mental well-being was being fully promoted. The acting manager The acting manager told us, “The staffing levels and the caring nature of our staff means we can give people the time they need, by staff that know them well.” We were also told, “We try to ensure that our residents are happy and comfortable.”
Policies and procedures were in place to safeguard people. Staff were aware of what actions they needed to take in the event of a safeguarding concern being raised. There was an open culture at the home and this was promoted by the management team who were visible and approachable.
People spoke highly of the food. One person told us, “The food is very good; I’ve got no complaints whatever.” Any dietary requirements were catered for and people were given regular choice on what they wished to eat and drink. Risk of malnourishment was assessed and where people had lost weight or were at risk of losing weight, guidance was in place for staff to follow.
People told us they were happy living at Havelock House. One person told us, “I’ve not been here long, and I’m glad I’m here – it’s really fantastic, I like the staff and I have made friends.” Staff spoke highly about the people they supported and spoke with pride and compassion when talking about people. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and staff recognised that dignity was individual and should be based on what each person wants.
The provider had processes to support staff to carry out their roles safely and effectively. Staff were encouraged to take further qualifications to develop their careers.
Pre-employment checks for staff were completed, which meant only suitable staff were working in the home.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The provider, manager and staff had an understanding of their responsibilities and processes of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
Staff said the management was fair and approachable, care meetings (handovers) were held after each shift to discuss people’s changing needs and how staff would meet these. Staff meetings were held monthly and staff were able to contribute to the meetings and make suggestions. Relatives said the management team was very good; and were always available, they would be happy to talk to them if they had any concerns and residents meetings provided an opportunity to discuss issues with other relatives and staff.
The provider had systems in place to review the support and care provided. Audits were undertaken regularly, including those for care plans, medicines and health and safety. Maintenance records for equipment and the environment were up to date, such as fire safety equipment and hoists. Policies and procedures had been reviewed and updated and were available for staff to refer to as required. Staff said they were encouraged to suggest improvements to the service and relatives told us they could visit at any time and they were always made to feel welcome and involved in the care provided.