Archived: Oaklands Care Home

After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breach. We undertook a focused inspection on the 11 April 2017 to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements.

This report only covers our findings in relation to this topic. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for ‘Oaklands Care Home’ on our website at www.cqc.org.uk’

Oaklands Care Home provides accommodation care and support for up to 31 older people, including those who are living with dementia.

The home had a registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our focused inspection on the 11 April 2017, we found that the provider had followed their plan which they had told us would be completed by the 31 March 2016 and legal requirements had been met.

The provider had taken action to ensure that consent to care and treatment was sought in line with current legislation and guidance. Staff were able to apply the principles and codes of conduct associated with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff continued to receive induction, training and professional development to support them to meet people’s needs.

People received regular and on-going health checks and support to attend appointments. They were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their needs and could choose from a range of alternative meals.

The provider had an on-going plan in relation to developing the home environment to take into account people’s changing needs including the needs of people living with dementia.

People told us that they were satisfied with the care and treatment provided in the home. A person said "food is good, accommodation is good, staff are friendly - it's good". Another person said "I am happy, that's the main thing, I am content". We found that care and treatment was delivered to meet people's individual needs and to promote their safety and welfare. People told us they were treated with respect and we observed that staff were caring and considerate in their interactions with people. A person's relative said "we are more than satisfied".

The provider had systems in place to manage people's medicines that included ensuring staff were trained and competent to administer medicines safely.

People and their representatives were asked about the quality of care provided and people told us that their comments and requests were listened to and acted on.

We have asked the provider to make some improvements in people's care records because we found that records were not always up to date and accurate.

When looking at care records we found people were getting suitable nutrition and hydration. Risk assessments were in place for any identified risks. Moving and handling assessments recorded how people should be supported. We also saw in care records that preventative pressure care arrangements were in place.

We toured the home and found that all radiators and exposed pipe work had been covered to prevent the risk of possible burns to people.

We spoke with the registered manager who told us that remedial action had taken place to address the compliance issues made at the last inspection.

People told us they liked living at the home. One person said, 'It's first class. It couldn't be better.'

People said they were well looked after and that the staff treated them with respect. One person said, 'The staff are lovely.' Another person said, 'I get everything I need.'

Relatives, people living at the home and a health and social care professional said there were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.

During the lunchtime we used our SOFI (Short Observational Framework for Inspection)

tool to help us see what people's experiences at mealtimes were. The SOFI tool allows us

to spend time watching what is going on in a service and helps us to record how people

spend their time and whether they have positive experiences. This includes looking at the

support that is given to them by the staff. We spent 30 minutes observing at lunchtime and

found that people had positive experiences. The staff supporting them knew what support

they needed. Staff were observed assisting people in a calm and polite manner.

We found that care plans were incomplete. We noted that care pans did not include pressure area prevention where this was identified as a high risk. We saw that care plans did not reflect the procedures followed for moving one person.

We also noted areas of risk of injury from hot pipes were not fully addressed.