CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Haven Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-managed care, with improvements since the last inspection.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 18 and 20 April 2023. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives, visitors, staff and health professionals, and checked care plans, medicines, quality records and recruitment files.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably recruited staff, good risk management, safe medicines systems, clean surroundings and appropriate infection controls. People's care needs were assessed, staff were trained and supervised, and people were supported with food, drinks and healthcare.
Inspectors found a calm and friendly atmosphere. Leaders had improved the home since the last inspection, when the overall rating was Requires Improvement. The inspection did not assess Caring or Responsive.
Safety and risk management
Inspectors found that risks such as falls, wounds, dehydration and weight loss were assessed and monitored. Staff knew how to support people safely.
“Clinical risks to people were thoroughly assessed, managed and monitored by all levels of staff.” from the report
Kind and friendly culture
Inspectors saw staff being kind and friendly. People and relatives described the atmosphere as calm, relaxed and welcoming.
“The atmosphere at the home was calm, relaxed and fun.” from the report
Quality improvement
The manager used audits, feedback and an improvement plan to track issues, assign actions and support ongoing improvement.
“Quality assurance and feedback systems were robust and enabled continuous learning and improvements to be made to the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you make regular checks on my relative if they cannot use their call bell?
- 02How will you monitor my relative's food, drinks, weight and risk of dehydration?
- 03How do you make sure medicines, including as-required medicines, are given and recorded safely?
- 04How will you support my relative's choices about activities, meals, daily routines and their room?
- 05What is the current position on the Caring and Responsive areas, which were not inspected in this report?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and previous ratings were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 May 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, September 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; the home had made progress, but staffing, monitoring, medicines records and management systems were not yet consistently reliable.
Inspectors visited without notice on 12 August 2021. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. There was a more permanent staff team, care plans were up to date, safeguarding arrangements had improved and activities were based on people's interests. The home was clean and infection control arrangements were judged satisfactory.
However, some people did not receive enough regular checks or social contact, especially those cared for in bed or spending time upstairs. Some topical medicine records were incomplete or unclear. Audits found problems, but action did not always stop them happening again.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and well-led were also Requires Improvement, while responsive was rated Good. The home was no longer in breach of regulations, but inspectors said the improvements needed more time to become everyday practice.
Better continuity of staff
The home had recruited more permanent staff, reducing its reliance on agency staff. People and relatives said staff knew them and their needs well.
“Agency staff numbers had reduced and were now only used for short term cover if needed.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans had been rewritten and contained current information about people's needs, risks, preferences and backgrounds.
“People's care plans were person centred and contained information about people's likes, hobbies and histories.” from the report
Good activities and choices
Activities were linked to people's interests and life histories. Staff offered choices about how people spent their day and what they ate and drank.
“Relatives and people told us that activities were focused around the individual person and that their histories, likes and hobbies were used to encourage people to engage in meaningful ways.” from the report
Improved safeguarding
Staff understood different types of abuse and how to report concerns. The manager investigated safeguarding concerns and shared information promptly.
“We saw that all safeguarding concerns were fully investigated by the registered manager and actions taken to protect people where necessary.” from the report
Not enough time for social contact
needs fixingStaff were busy supporting people to get up and did not always have time for meaningful interaction. This was particularly a problem for people upstairs or spending time in their rooms.
“People and relatives were positive about the staff but felt there were not enough staff to provide regular meaningful engagement to people.” from the report
Incomplete topical medicine records
seriousSome topical medicine instructions were unclear and there were gaps showing whether creams had been applied. One long-acting medicine was also missed on one occasion and was not followed up at the time.
“However, some instructions on the topical medication administration records (MARs) were not clear and there were some gaps in the recording of application.” from the report
Irregular checks for some people
seriousPeople who could not use a call bell were not always checked regularly. One person called out without staff hearing, so their need for support was not recognised.
“People who spent their time in their bedrooms did not always receive regular monitoring.” from the report
Audits did not always lead to lasting change
needs fixingThe home had systems to identify problems, but some issues continued after they had already been found by audits.
“However, where shortfalls had been identified on audits and actioned, we found that not enough action had been taken to prevent reoccurrence.” from the report
- 01How many staff are allocated to each floor at different times of day, and how do you make sure people upstairs receive enough social contact?
- 02How often are people who cannot use a call bell checked, and how is each check recorded?
- 03What changes have been made to ensure topical medicine instructions and application records are complete and clear?
- 04How do you check that actions from medicine and other audits have been completed and have not been repeated?
- 05What activities are available for people who spend most of their time in their rooms?
This was an unannounced inspection focused on Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not separately rated in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 September 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Haven Care Home
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2021Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 January 2017.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.