Langley Haven Care Home provides accommodation and personal care to older adults, some who have a diagnosis of dementia. The service is a mock-Tudor style building with three floors and located in quiet residential cul-de-sac. There are 33 en-suite single bedrooms and one double room, with one assisted bathroom and two shower rooms. The service is registered to accommodate up to 35 people. At the time of our inspection, 34 people used the service.

At our last inspection, the service was rated good.

At this inspection we found the service remained good.

Why the service is rated good:

People were protected from abuse and neglect. We found staff knew about risks to people and how to avoid potential harm. Risks related to people’s care were assessed, recorded and mitigated. The management of risks from the building were also considered. We found appropriate numbers of staff were deployed to meet people’s needs. Medicines management was safe, and staff focused on the prevention of errors. We saw some refurbishments were completed to modernise the building and provide more bedrooms and communal spaces.

Staff training and support was good. Staff had the necessary knowledge, experience and skills to provide appropriate care for people. The service was compliant with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and associated codes of practice. People’s nutrition and hydration was closely monitored. Appropriate access to community healthcare professionals was available.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

There was a lot of complimentary feedback about Langley Haven Care Home. People and others told us staff were accommodating. People and relatives were able to participate in care planning and reviews and some decisions were made by staff in people’s best interests. People’s privacy and dignity was respected.

Care plans were personalised and reviewed regularly. There was a satisfactory complaints system in place which included the ability for people and others to escalate complaints. People and relatives told us they had no complaints, but knew the process for raising any concerns.

Management and operation of the service was outstanding. All staff worked continuously as an effective team to improve care, ensure people were safe and focus on the quality of the service. Langley Haven Care Home was awarded multiple prestigious industry awards for the improvement the care provided made to people’s lives. Innovation, research and continuous assessment of support for people were all a standard part of the service. The service had excellent working partnerships with external agencies dedicated to the improvement of adult social care.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Langley Haven Care Home provides accommodation and personal care to older adults, some who have a diagnosis of dementia. The service is a mock-Tudor style building with three floors and located in quiet residential cul-de-sac. There are 33 en-suite single bedrooms and one double room, with one assisted bathroom and two shower rooms. The service is registered to accommodate up to 35 people. At the time of our inspection, 34 people used the service.

At our last inspection, the service was rated good.

At this inspection we found the service remained good.

Why the service is rated good:

People were protected from abuse and neglect. We found staff knew about risks to people and how to avoid potential harm. Risks related to people’s care were assessed, recorded and mitigated. The management of risks from the building were also considered. We found appropriate numbers of staff were deployed to meet people’s needs. Medicines management was safe, and staff focused on the prevention of errors. We saw some refurbishments were completed to modernise the building and provide more bedrooms and communal spaces.

Staff training and support was good. Staff had the necessary knowledge, experience and skills to provide appropriate care for people. The service was compliant with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and associated codes of practice. People’s nutrition and hydration was closely monitored. Appropriate access to community healthcare professionals was available.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

There was a lot of complimentary feedback about Langley Haven Care Home. People and others told us staff were accommodating. People and relatives were able to participate in care planning and reviews and some decisions were made by staff in people’s best interests. People’s privacy and dignity was respected.

Care plans were personalised and reviewed regularly. There was a satisfactory complaints system in place which included the ability for people and others to escalate complaints. People and relatives told us they had no complaints, but knew the process for raising any concerns.

Management and operation of the service was outstanding. All staff worked continuously as an effective team to improve care, ensure people were safe and focus on the quality of the service. Langley Haven Care Home was awarded multiple prestigious industry awards for the improvement the care provided made to people’s lives. Innovation, research and continuous assessment of support for people were all a standard part of the service. The service had excellent working partnerships with external agencies dedicated to the improvement of adult social care.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Is the service safe?

The service was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk.

People told us they felt safe in the home. They told us they felt respected and their opinions were listened to by staff. Changes were made to the way care was carried out if people requested it or when their needs changed.

We noted practice emergency fire evacuations had not taken place every six months in line with the provider’s policy. However, we did see documentation which showed a practice evacuation had taken place in the last two months. We also saw the fire protection equipment in the home had been regularly checked and maintained.

We saw the provider had assessed risks to people and taken action to minimise those risks. Control of Substances Hazardous to Health documentation was in place alongside a contingency plan for dealing with emergency situations.

We saw documentation related to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how it had been applied to people’s care. We saw how the provider had worked with other professionals and family members to act in the person’s best interest and in the least restrictive manner. There had been no requirement to submit a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards application at the time of our inspection.

Is the service effective?

Each person had received an assessment of need prior to moving into the home. From this, risk assessments and care plans had been drawn up to direct staff in how to care for people safely and effectively.

We observed how staff supported people in a positive and friendly manner.

Specialist dietary and mobility needs had been identified in care plans where required. We saw people were supported with mealtimes in a positive and person centred way. We saw how people's cultural and religious needs were met through diet and support from staff.

Is the service caring?

We observed care being provided to people throughout the day. We saw people who used the service related well to staff. Staff provided reassurance and assistance in a positive and encouraging way. One person told us “It is a very good place I am glad I am here…they look after you, they do things for you too!” When we asked another person to tell us about the quality of the care they said “It is really excellent.”

People’s preferences, interests, and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes.

Is the service responsive?

We saw staff responded to the needs of people who used the service. We noted in care plans and records how systems were in place to ensure staff responded to their physical and mental health needs.

We saw a range of activities were carried out in the home that people engaged with which ranged from hatching chickens, ballroom dancing, singing and craft.

People knew how to make complaints. One complaint had been made by a person who lived in the home, and this had been dealt with immediately.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system, records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.

People told us they felt the home was well managed. We saw from the documentation how people’s care was monitored and changes were made where appropriate.

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

This visit was a follow up inspection to check if the home was now compliant. Following the last inspection, the provider had sent us an action plan detailing how they were the going to address the concerns we raised. During this inspection we found the action plan had been put in place.

During our visit we spoke with three people, a relative and five members of staff. We saw the home had made improvements to ensure people were provided with a range of activities which provided them with mental stimulation and met their social care needs. One person we spoke with told us “I am enjoying myself; I like all the activities…especially the sing along one.” Another person said “They have a lot more activities now.” A relative we spoke with told us “In these last couple of months I can see there has been an improvement, a real change, people now have a lot more to do. I have seen they have choices here and people are enjoying themselves with the different activities planned.”

We found the provider had taken appropriate steps to protect people from the risks of abuse. People and their relatives told us that they felt very safe at the home and they hadn't had to raise any concerns. One person told us “I feel safe enough, I have been here for many years.”

We found there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs. One person told us "There's always enough staff."

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. People told us staff always sought their permission before delivering care. Some comments included "staff always ask me can we do this for you or do want us to help you with this" and "staff never do anything against my wish."

People told us staff knew them very well and understood their individual needs. One person said "I am in very good hands... the staff know what I need and how best to help me." People described the care delivered by staff as "very good", "excellent" and "this place is like one of the best hotel's, I just couldn't ask more from the staff."

However people's social needs were not maintained or promoted. People told us "I wish we could do fun things like earlier", "I just feel very sleepy and tired when I sit in the lounge, we have nothing to do" and "I want to do things like go out and shop for myself with the staff or go out and have a walk."

None of the people we spoke with expressed any concern about the care they had received. Comments included "I have no problems here... I have had no reason to make a complaint" and "I have lived here a long time and have not had to make a complaint." People told us, although they would speak to member of staff or the manager if they had a concern but they were not aware of the process to follow if they wished to make a written complaint.

We spoke with a three of the residents and three visiting relatives, all of whom were complimentary of the home. Staff were said to be, “Very caring and dedicated.” One relative told us that her father responded positively when he saw staff. A resident told us that “The staff couldn’t be better.” The provision of social activities was commented upon positively by relatives, with compliments extended about the activities co-ordinator.

The environment was said to be very homely, clean and nicely furnished. We were told that people were happy living in the home. Relatives and residents who spoke with us thought that the food service was very good, with a range of choice, good portion sizes and fresh produce.