Haven House

This service was set up and registered prior to Building the Right Support and Registering the Right Support and it is not the size of service we would be registering if the application to register was made to CQC today. This is because it does not conform to the guidance as it is very difficult for larger services for people with learning disabilities to meet the standards. However, we found the service was supporting people living at Haven House to live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Systems were in place to manage risks to people's safety. Potential risks to people were assessed and managed appropriately. Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed in order to reduce the risk of them reoccurring. People received their medicines safely and in line with their prescriptions. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff and did not have to wait for their care. Staff had been recruited appropriately and had received relevant training so that they were able to support people with their individual care and support needs. The environment was clean, homely and well-maintained. Aids and adaptations were in place to meet people's needs. There was a contingency plan in place to help ensure people's care would not be disrupted in the event of an emergency.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People's nutritional needs were met and a choice of food and drinks were available. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals and any guidance provided by them was followed. People's needs were assessed prior to them moving into the service to ensure the staff had the skills to support them.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. People's rights to privacy were respected by the staff who supported them and their dignity was maintained. Staff knew people well and were aware of people's individual communication styles. People were encouraged to take part in daily living tasks and encouraged to develop their independent living skills. Visitors were made to feel welcome and people were supported to maintain relationships with those who were important to them.

People and their relatives were involved in decisions about the care. The service responded to people's

changing needs in a timely manner and care plans were regularly reviewed. People had access to a variety of activities both within the community and when spending time at home. Where appropriate, people were supported to make decisions regarding the care they wanted at the end of their life. There was a complaints policy in place which was displayed in an easy read format. There had been no complaints received within the last year.

People using the service, their relatives and staff were confident about approaching the registered manager and provider if they needed to. Effective auditing systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service. The views of people and their relatives on the quality of the service were sought. There was a positive culture throughout the service. Staff felt supported in their roles and shared a common ethos and values.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

The five questions we ask about services and what we found