Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Forest Haven, London.

Forest Haven in London is a Residential home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care and learning disabilities. The last inspection date here was 30th June 2018

Forest Haven is managed by Clearwater Care (Hackney) Limited who are also responsible for 9 other locations

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Forest Haven
      Hawksmouth
      London
      E4 7NA
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      02085244188

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2018-06-30
    Last Published 2018-06-30

Local Authority:

    Waltham Forest

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

30th May 2018 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We last inspected this service in March 2016 where it was rated ‘good’ overall. This inspection took place on 30 May 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection as it is a small service for adults with a learning disability who are often out during the day. We needed to be sure people would be in during our inspection.

Forest Haven is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Forest haven can accommodate up to five people. At the time of our inspection four people were living in the home. The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The service was safe and people were protected from harm. Support workers were knowledgeable about safeguarding adults from abuse and what to do if they had any concerns and how to report them. Safeguarding training was given to all staff.

Risk assessments were thorough and personalised. Support workers knew what to do in an emergency situation.

Staffing levels were meeting the needs of the people who used the service and support workers demonstrated they had the relevant knowledge to support people with their care.

Recruitment practices were safe and records confirmed this.

Medicines were managed and administered safely and audited on a weekly basis.

Newly recruited support workers received an induction and shadowed more experienced members of staff. Training for support workers was provided on a regular basis and updated when relevant. Support workers told us the quality of training was good.

Support workers demonstrated an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and how they obtained consent from people on a daily basis. Consent was recorded in people's care plans.

People were supported with maintaining a balanced diet and the people who used the service chose their meals and these were provided in line with their preferences.

People were supported to have access to healthcare services and receive on-going support. Referrals to healthcare professionals were made appropriately and a multi-disciplinary approach was adopted to support people.

Positive relationships were formed between support workers and the people who used the service and staff demonstrated how they knew the people they cared for well. People who used the service and their relatives told us support workers were caring and treated them with respect.

Care plans were detailed and contained relevant information about people who used the service and their needs such as their preferences and communication needs.

Concerns and complaints were listened to and records confirmed this.

People who used the service, their relatives and support workers spoke highly of the registered manager and told us they felt supported by them.

Quality assurance practices were robust and taking place regularly.

2nd March 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We inspected Forest Haven on 2 March 2016. This was an announced inspection. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location was a small care home for adults who are often out during the day and we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

Forest Haven is a care home providing accommodation and support with personal care for people with learning disabilities. The home is registered for five people. At the time of the inspection they were providing personal care and support to four people.

There was not a registered manager at the service at the time of our inspection. The manager in place at the time of our visit was still in the process of completing registration with the Care Quality Commission. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The provider had systems in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff understood how to keep people safe and knew the people they were supporting very well. People’s finances were managed and audited regularly by staff. People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

There were enough staff to keep people safe. Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place to make sure suitable staff worked with people who used the service. Staff were skilled and experienced to meet people’s needs because they received appropriate training, supervision and appraisal. The service met the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards.

Care was personalised and delivered to a good standard. People received good support to make sure their nutritional and health needs were appropriately met. People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care needs.

The service had good management and leadership. The provider had a system to monitor and assess the quality of service provision. Safety checks were carried out around the service and any safety issues were reported and dealt with promptly.

13th May 2014 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Forest Haven is a care home providing personal care and accommodation for up to five people with autistic spectrum disorder. It has four single bedrooms with attached private bathrooms and a separate self-contained living space for one person.

The service opened in July 2013. The registered manager has been in post since then. At the time of the inspection, four people were using the service. Two people had moved into the home in the previous three weeks, one of whom was using the self-contained living space. The other two people had lived there since the summer of 2013.

Some of the people who use Forest Haven have needs related to their challenging behaviour. None of the people living at the home were able to explain their views of the service to us because of their complex needs. We observed people whilst they received their support. People were supported to make choices about how they spent their time. The service had assessed each person’s individual communication needs. Staff were trained to use specific communication tools for each person, such as picture books, to clarify for example, whether they wanted to go out. Staff knew people well and understood each person’s behaviour and facial expressions. They used this knowledge to support people to choose what they wanted to eat.

After the inspection, we asked three relatives of people who use the service and a social care professional for their views. A person’s relative said, “the service seems good, they involved us from the beginning and the staff pleasant and professional but they don’t always give us all the information we want. We are having a meeting to speak to the registered manager about it.”

Another person’s relative said, “it is early days, as it is a new service, but on the whole they do a good job and get the essentials right.” People’s records showed that the provider had ensured their individual needs were thoroughly assessed. For example, a support worker had spent several hours with a person at their previous care setting and had written a detailed report describing their behaviour and how they interacted with staff. This enabled the provider to develop a support plan to safely meet their needs when they moved to Forest Haven.

Support workers told us the provider’s training and support arrangements were comprehensive and enabled them to develop their skills and knowledge in relation to supporting people with autistic spectrum disorder. We found that they understood how to recognise and report any safeguarding concerns. Staff said they were trained in how to respond to challenging behaviour without using restraint. An expert in autism was used by the staff team to help them plan people’s support. Support workers told us people were supported safely because there were sufficient numbers of skilled staff on each shift.

Support workers we spoke with were knowledgeable about people’s needs and said they had the opportunity to get to know people well. Detailed communication plans were in place and we observed that staff followed these guidelines when supporting people. For example, staff used communication tools such as picture books, and their understanding of the meaning of people’s behaviour and facial expressions, to support them in accordance with their preferences.

Each person’s records included a checklist which demonstrated that the provider had considered whether the person was under any form of restraint and whether a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) application should be made. We observed that people in the service were not currently subject to restrictions to their liberty. Staff were able to explain to us the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and people’s relatives told us they were involved in making ‘best interests’ decisions about them if they lacked the mental capacity to make a decision.

The provider had a system in place to monitor the quality of the service. The registered manager and the regional manager undertook regular checks on people’s records, staff support and training and the safety of the premises. Any areas for improvement were identified and followed up. The provider had evaluated the needs of people using the service and ensured that the number of appropriately skilled staff on each shift was sufficient to support them safely.

12th December 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We talked to staff and observed their interaction with people where this was possible. Staff that we spoke to understood the importance of demonstrating dignity and respect in the delivery of care and support at all times. Picture based and electronic tools were used to ensure that people were involved in decisions about their care and to obtain people’s consent.

People’s needs were assessed prior to starting the service, support plans helped to enhance people’s lives through promoting independence. Additional capacity was available through an autism practitioner and this was helping to support staff as they developed a range of different ways to communicate with people based on individual needs.

People were protected from the risk of abuse and neglect and the service had taken appropriate action to minimise risk to people. Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of care, but managers had not recieved any feedback from questionnaires sent to stakeholders, people or family carers. The provider might like to note the need to ensure they actively obtain feedback and that arrangements were more coherent and robust, so there was a clearer ongoing picture of performance, quality and service improvement.

 

 

Latest Additions: