CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Little Haven
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced inspection on 24 February 2020. One inspector spoke with eight people, seven relatives and seven staff. They also spoke with the manager and provider representatives, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, audits and other records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, good infection control and suitable support for people's health, nutrition and personal choices.
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, protecting their privacy and supporting their independence. The home had regular activities, care reviews, complaints arrangements and checks on care quality.
The previous inspection rating was also Good, on 6 July 2017. A new manager had been in post for seven weeks and had started the process of registering with the CQC.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient and that staff responded promptly when people needed help.
“There were a sufficient number of staff to meet people's needs in a timely manner.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, given and recorded correctly in the records and stock checked by inspectors.
“People's medicines were managed to ensure they were stored, administered and documented correctly.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected privacy, knocked before entering rooms and supported independence.
“People's care and support was delivered with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff knew people's likes and dislikes, and care plans were checked and reviewed so support stayed relevant.
“We saw people's care was reviewed regularly to ensure the support they received reflected their current needs.” from the report
Food and drink
People had choices of nutritious food and enough drinks. Staff supported people patiently and provided specialist diets where needed.
“People were provided with a choice of nutritious food and sufficient drinks to maintain their health and wellbeing.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What progress has the new manager made with the process of registering with the CQC?
- 02How will you assess and manage my relative's individual risks, such as falls or mobility needs?
- 03How will you support my relative's dietary, communication and healthcare needs?
- 04How often will my relative's care plan be reviewed, and how will they or their family be involved?
- 05What activities and one-to-one support would be available for my relative?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 March 2020 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 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and improvements to medicines monitoring after earlier errors.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 6 July 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, the manager and staff. They observed care and looked at care records, medicine records, staffing, training, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough experienced staff, suitable recruitment checks, good care planning and positive relationships between staff and people.
The inspection was brought forward because of concerns about medicines monitoring. The home had found errors and introduced more checks, training and competency assessments. Inspectors found these changes had led to a significant reduction in errors. The home remained Good, as it had been at the previous inspection in February 2016.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed caring, friendly and respectful interactions that supported people's dignity.
“Staff developed positive caring relationships, being respectful and courteous towards each other and people living in the home.” from the report
Personalised care planning
Care plans were written clearly and gave staff useful information about people's individual needs, preferences and risks.
“The plans were written in a clear, accessible style and provided insight into each person and their needs.” from the report
Good staff support and training
New staff had induction and shadowing, while existing staff received ongoing training, supervision and appraisals.
“Staff were further supported through on-going training and regular supervision and appraisal meetings.” from the report
Activities and involvement
People could choose from group and individual activities. Residents' meetings and regular care reviews helped people and relatives share their views.
“The activities coordinator offered one to one activities to people who preferred to not take part in group activities.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff described managers as approachable and open. The home used audits, surveys and incident reviews to monitor its service.
“There was an open and inclusive culture within the service.” from the report
Previous medicines errors
needs fixingThe inspection was brought forward because of concerns about how medicines were being monitored. The home had identified errors and introduced extra checks and training, with errors reported to have reduced significantly.
“This inspection was brought forward from the planned date due to concerns about how the registered provider was monitoring the safe management of medicines.” from the report
Staffing levels
minorInspectors judged staffing sufficient, but some people and a relative said the home could probably do with more staff. The home was using agency staff and was expecting a new permanent night nurse.
“A relative told us "I think they can do with more staff, but they ones they have are really good".” from the report
- 01What medicines errors happened before the new checking system was introduced, and how are you checking that the improvements remain effective?
- 02How many permanent and agency staff are normally working on each shift, including at night?
- 03How do you make sure care plans continue to reflect changes in a person's health, risks and preferences?
- 04How are people supported if they do not want to join group activities?
- 05How are concerns or complaints recorded, investigated and followed up?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the home retained its previous Good rating from February 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 September 2017 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 Little Haven
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 January 2011.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.