Harbour House

People were supported to access healthcare services. Staff reported changes in people's health and sought professional advice. However, communication between the staff, the manager and external healthcare professionals was not always effective.

Guidance and direction provided to staff and the registered manager was not always carried out as requested. Audits were not always effective and management oversight was not robust.

Harbour House was using an electronic system to manage people's medicine requirements. The system helped ensure people received their medicines as prescribed. However, the administration and recording of some medicines was not always carried out appropriately.

Medicines that required stricter controls were not always accurately recorded. Oversight and auditing of medicines management was not effective.

Staff had not always been recruited safely. Gaps in employment history were not always explored. The dates provided on some returned references did not always match with the dates provided on the person's application form.

References were not always received before staff began working unsupervised. The provider was aware of this, and immediate action was being taken to obtain these.

Several people living at Harbour House had lost weight recently. There was no clear process in place for responding to these concerns.

Risks were not always effectively reviewed when care plan reviews took place. Weights were not checked along with Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) assessments and care plans were signed off as 'no change' when checks had not always taken place to confirm this.

Care plans did not always contain clear accurate guidance. One person's care plan stated information that was contradictory. We asked for some care plans to be reviewed by the registered manager to ensure they provided up to date, accurate and clear guidance to staff.

There were enough staff to respond to people's needs. Staff had been provided with training and support to enable them to carry out their role.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. There were no Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations in place at the time of this inspection.

People told us that they felt safe in the service. Visitors told us they felt their family member was safe and protected living at Harbour House. Comments included, "Yes, it seems very nice. Lovely room and the staff are kind."

The premises were clean and well decorated. People had filled their rooms with familiar items and photographs. People enjoyed the food provided at Harbour House.

People had been asked for their views and experiences at residents meetings and via a questionnaire. Responses were mostly positive.

The provider had systems in place to monitor equipment and utilities. Systems were in place to support people in the event of an emergency.