What the CQC found at Havering Court Care Home

People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw warm interactions and found that people were treated with dignity and respect.

“We observed warm and caring interactions between people and staff.” from the report

People's choking, allergy and dietary needs were assessed. Staff supported people safely and kindly at their own pace during lunch.

“Some people were assisted to eat, and this was done safely and kindly.” from the report

Staff received induction, training and supervision. Inspectors found that staff could demonstrate the skills and knowledge needed to support people.

“Staff were supported with an induction, training, supervision and performance appraisals” from the report

People were offered activities that matched their needs and interests. Inspectors saw people enjoying music and a sensory session.

“We saw lots of people listening, participating and enjoying the music.” from the report

Risks such as falls, choking, mobility and pressure ulcers were assessed and had detailed plans to reduce harm.

“Risks such as those for falls, oral health, choking and mobility were identified and there were detailed risk management plans for these risks.” from the report

Some medicines had been signed as given before they were taken, which could make it appear that a missed dose had been given. Refrigerator temperatures were also not recorded accurately.

“We found discrepancies on some medicine administration records (MAR) which indicated staff had signed that medicines were administered to people in advance of them taking the medicine.” from the report

The home did not always complete capacity assessments or record consent properly. One person's drinks restriction was recorded without evidence of consultation, and another person's covert medicines lacked a capacity assessment.

“There was an inconsistent approach to MCA assessments.” from the report

Audits had not found the medicines, consent and fluid-monitoring problems. This meant managers did not have a reliable enough picture of risks in the home.

“The provider had quality assurance systems in place, but they were not used effectively to monitor the safety of the home.” from the report

Fluid targets were set at the same level for everyone rather than being based on individual needs. One person had been below their target for four days without the target being reassessed.

“However, we found that fluid targets for each person were set at an identical level which meant they were not targeted to the specific person's fluid needs or requirements.” from the report

Records did not always show lessons learned or how repeat incidents would be prevented. Staff said important information was also discussed during handovers and meetings.

“However, the section to record lessons learned and the risk of re-occurrence was not always completed” from the report

Some hospital passports were being updated, but IT problems meant staff were writing out essential information for transfers. Inspectors were concerned this could delay access to important information in an emergency.

“We were concerned this could hinder staff from accessing essential information if there was an emergency.” from the report