Archived: Safe Harbour Dementia Care Home

Updated 15 July 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions.

This inspection took place on 01 June 2015 and was unannounced. We arrived at the home at 9.30am and left at 7pm. This inspection was done to check that improvements to meet legal requirements planned by the provider after our previous inspection had been made.

The inspection was carried out by two adult social care inspectors, a pharmacist inspector and a specialist adviser with qualifications, skills and experience in caring for people with dementia.

Before the inspection we reviewed all the information we already held on the service and contacted the Health and Safety Executive, and the local authority who funded the care for some of the people living there.

During our inspection we observed how the staff interacted with the people who used the service and looked at how people were supported during their lunch and throughout the day. We reviewed five staff recruitment files, staff training records, and records relating to the management of the service such as audits and policies and procedures. We also spoke with the manager, the cook, the maintenance person, the administrator, the activity organiser and three care staff.

People who lived at Safe Harbour were not able to communicate verbally with us because they were living with advanced dementia, so we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who cannot talk with us. We also reviewed the care records of five people.

Updated 15 July 2015

This inspection took place on 1 June 2015 and was unannounced. We arrived at the home at 9.30am and left at 7pm.

Safe Harbour Dementia Care Home is registered to provide personal and nursing care for up to 49 older people. On the day of the inspection 12 people were living in the home.

The home has single room accommodation over two floors. Each floor has lounges, dining areas and bathing and toilet facilities. There is also a garden, which has a summerhouse.

The home has not had a registered manager for two years. 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.

We carried out an unannounced inspection of this service on 28 January and 2 February 2015. Breaches of legal requirements were found. After the inspection, the registered provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breaches.

We have had a number of concerns about this service for the last two years and have taken enforcement action against the registered provider. We asked the provider to take action to make improvements in obtaining consent to care and treatment, care and welfare of people who use the service, safeguarding people from abuse, management of medicines, safety of premises and equipment, supporting staff and assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision. We undertook this inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements.

A new manager and deputy manager had been appointed and the manager had applied for registration.

At this inspection we found that some improvements had been made to the décor and furnishings to provide a dementia friendly environment in the part of the home that was occupied by people who used the service, but the ground floor of the home was in need of refurbishment. We also found that the provider had not taken any action to address matters identified as requiring ‘immediate remedial action’ in a report of the examination of the electrical installation, although action was taken following the inspection.

We found that the experiences of people who lived at the home were more positive.

People’s needs were assessed and care plans were developed to identify what care and support people required.

There were regular reviews of people’s care and welfare and people were referred to appropriate health and social care professionals to ensure they received treatment and support for their specific needs. Medicines were administered safely.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. The staff ensured people’s privacy and dignity were respected. We saw that bedroom doors were always kept closed when people were being supported with personal care.

People could choose how to spend their day and they took part in activities in the home and the community. The home employed activity organisers who engaged people in activities in small groups during the day.

Staff had received specific training to meet the needs of people using the service and received support from the management team to develop their skills. Staff had also received training in how to recognise and report abuse. All were clear about how to report any concerns. Staff spoken with were confident that any allegations made would be fully investigated to ensure people were protected.

There were processes in place for responding to complaints.

Some people who used the service did not have the ability to make decisions about some parts of their care and support. Staff had an understanding of the systems in place to protect people who could not make decisions and followed the legal requirements outlined in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

The new manager had implemented processes to monitor the quality of the service and seek people’s views and we saw these had been acted upon to improve the service.

The previous rating for this service was inadequate. The manager at the time of the inspection had been in post for two months and had made a number of improvements but it was too early to determine whether the improvements would be sustained.