You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 March 2017

We carried out an announced inspection of Oxford House on 2 March 2017.

Oxford House is a domiciliary care agency providing care and support to more than 100 people living in their own homes. On the day of our inspection 169 people were receiving a personal care service.

At our last inspection on 3 February 2016 we found medicines were not always managed safely, medicine records were not always complete. This was a breach of Regulation 12 Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We also found the provider did not have effective systems in place to ensure the quality of the service was monitored and improved to ensure the regulations were met. This was a breach of Regulation 17 Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

In addition we recommended the service took action to ensure people's care records identified how they would be supported in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

At this inspection on 2 March 2017 we found the provider had made improvements and had addressed these concerns.

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.

We were greeted warmly by staff at the service who seemed genuinely pleased to see us. The atmosphere in the office was open and friendly.

People told us they were safe. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding. Staff had received regular training to make sure they stayed up to date with recognising and reporting safety concerns. The service had systems in place to notify the appropriate authorities where concerns were identified.

People were supported by staff who were knowledgeable about people’s needs and provided support with compassion and kindness. People received high quality care that was personalised and met their needs.

Where risks to people had been identified, risk assessments were in place and action had been taken to manage these risks. Staff were aware of people’s needs and followed guidance to keep them safe. People received their medicines as prescribed.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. Staffing levels and visit schedules were consistently maintained. People told us staff were usually punctual and they had not experienced any missed visits. The provider followed safe recruitment procedures and conducted background checks to ensure staff were suitable for their role.

Most staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and applied its principles in their work. The MCA protects the rights of people who may not be able to make particular decisions themselves. The registered manager was knowledgeable about the MCA and how to ensure the rights of people who lacked capacity were protected.

People told us they were confident they would be listened to and action would be taken if they raised a concern. The service sought people’s opinions through regular surveys and telephone monitoring calls. The service had systems to assess the quality of the service provided. Learning needs were identified and action taken to make improvements which promoted people’s safety and quality of life. Systems were in place that ensured people were protected against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care.

Staff spoke positively about the support they received from the registered manager and senior staff. Staff supervision and meetings were scheduled as were annual appraisals. Staff told us the registered manager was approachable and there was a good level of communication within the service.

People told us the service was friendly, responsive and well managed. People knew the registered manager and staff and spoke positively about them. The service sought people’s views and opinions and acted upon them.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 March 2017

The service was safe.

There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people’s needs.

People told us they felt safe. Staff knew how to identify and raise concerns.

Risks to people were managed and assessments were in place to reduce the risk and keep people safe. People received their medicines as prescribed.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 March 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who had the training and knowledge to support them effectively.

Staff received support and supervision and had access to further training and development.

Staff had been trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and understood and applied its principles.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 March 2017

The service was caring.

Staff were kind, compassionate and respectful and treated people and their relatives with dignity and respect.

Staff gave people the time to express their wishes and respected the decisions they made. People were involved in their care.

The service promoted people’s independence.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 March 2017

The service was responsive.

Care plans were personalised and gave clear guidance for staff on how to support people.

People knew how to raise concerns and were confident action would be taken.

People’s needs were assessed prior to receiving any care to make sure their needs could be met.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 March 2017

The service was well led.

The service had systems in place to monitor the quality of service.

The service shared learning and looked for continuous improvement.

There was a whistle blowing policy in place that was available to staff around the service. Staff knew how to raise concerns.