Archived: Oaklands Community Care

We spent time speaking with people who used the service as well as speaking with staff, managers and relatives. We reviewed records and spent time observing people in two properties. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report. We used the evidence to answer five questions.

Is the service safe?

People were cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment at the properties that we inspected had been well maintained and serviced regularly. We spoke with people who said that they felt safe and secure. One person wanted to show us their private living area and said that they were very happy with it. A family member told us that they were happy with support workers and their relative's living conditions.

Staff records demonstrated that mandatory training was up to date and that staff were trained to meet the complex needs of people in most cases. Staff were trained in caring for people with diabetes, complex communication needs and autism. Some staff we spoke with said that they would benefit from additional training in de-escalation techniques for people with complex behaviour.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications had needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

We spent time observing staff and people. It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of people's care and support needs and that they knew them well. We spoke with a relative who told us that they were pleased with the level of support that staff had provided but that communication had not been as frequent as they would have liked.

A person told us that they felt looked after and enjoyed living there, particularly the support they had to live independently. People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard. Staff had received training to meet the needs of people when they first began using the service. Some staff told us that they were able to put their training into practice and would like training that was more in-depth and more frequent to assist with people's needs that developed whilst they were using the service.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that support workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people, especially when they wanted to talk or were anxious. Staff took into account the complex needs of people when planning activities so that they could take part in these safely. We spoke with a person who said, "I like going out to the shops and they [staff] let me do this whenever I want. We're busy planning a holiday which I'm looking forward to."

Some staff said that they were happy with the level of professional and emotional support they received from managers and others said that they would like more support.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before they moved into the home and these were checked by regular reviews, in which they were involved. People's needs assessments included consideration of their dietary and nutrition requirements as well as their need for stimulating activities that helped them to feel part of their community. Where a person's needs had changed, we found that the provider had taken steps to involve the relevant local professionals.

People's preferences and interests were acted on by staff who were able to support people consistently to help them to meet their needs and goals. People had access to activities that were designed to stimulate them and they were able to influence the running of the service. We spent time speaking with a member of staff who showed us how menus were put together with the help of people and how they were able to accommodate special requests as well as meet complex dietary needs.

Is the service well led?

Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. Staff told us that they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Some staff told us that management support helped them to do their job effectively. One person told us, "The [support workers] are great. We have a laugh, they look after me but it's definitely like living in my own home." A relative said that they had raised concerns about the lack of communication with the provider and that they had been able to resolve this with a manager.

People using the service told us they were given choices about the activities they wished to do and were supported by staff when necessary. One parent told us 'my relative has the same care worker and this is good as the care worker knows how to keep our relative calm and they get on well together. We attend planning meetings every so often and are given advance notice for these meetings'.

A professional commented they found the service to be very good at reporting matters. They found care workers were good a prompting the person they supported. They told us they found interactions to be well structured between the person receiving services and the care workers. This meant the agency was satisfactorily able to meet the person's needs.

One person told us they had been part of the recruitment process for new care workers. We saw systems were in place to listen to the views of people who used the services. A yearly review took place and could be held more often if required. We spoke with family representatives. They told us they were invited to meetings and to the best of their knowledge staff informed them of incidents when they occurred.

People received regular supervision. This meant that the provider would be able to regularly assess, monitor and support staff to ensure that they were able to deliver care to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

The provider had ensured that staff were up today with mandatory training and taken appropriate action where this had elapsed.

One person who used the service told us that the staff 'were good', another told us that staff 'were always happy to help'. One person we spoke with commented that 'staff understand me'.

One person stated 'I feel quite lucky to live here'.

All the staff members we spoke with felt supported. One told us that it was 'a really good company' and that people who used the service 'are really really happy'.

We found evidence that the provider had a clear focus on involving people who used the service in all areas of their care. However there were some issues with training and supervision of staff.