We carried out a review of the data available to us about Oakmount House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Oakmount House, you can give feedback on this service.
Oakmount House is a residential home providing personal care to up to 10 people within an adapted property on the outskirts of Burnley town centre. The service provides support to people with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection there were 10 people using the service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People felt safe in the service. Staff were able to recognise and report concerns. Systems were in place to monitor and manage risks. Environmental checks were completed, and individual risk assessments were in place and reviewed. Staff were recruited safely and there was enough staff to meet people’s needs. Medicines systems were managed safely. Infection control measures were in place. People were supported to have visitors to the service.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People’s needs were being assessed and they had choices around their care. Staff were given training and ongoing development. An induction programme was in place and regular supervision and appraisals were being completed. People were supported to make healthy choices on their meals and their nutritional needs were met. Referrals to health agencies were being completed. The property had adaptions to meet people’s needs.
People were treated with dignity and respect. People had a positive experience of the home and staff. People were involved in decisions around their care and their views were considered when making decisions on new admissions or appointment of staff within the home.
People had personalised care. Activities were being offered at the service in line with people’s wishes and views. Processes and systems were in place to respond to complaints.
A positive and empowering culture existed in the home. Values were incorporated that had been made in partnership with people and staff. The registered manager was described as approachable and understood duty of candour responsibilities. Governance polices, systems and processes were in place and were being used to maintain oversight of the service. People and staff were involved in decisions about the service and their views were being sought.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was good (published 7 March 2018).
At our last inspection we recommended that the provider updates medicine management policies and procedures in line with NICE guidance. At this inspection we found the provider had acted on this recommendation and included key areas of medicine management that were not previously documented.
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Oakmount House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
Oakmount House is a care home which is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to 10 adults with mental ill health. The service does not provide nursing care. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection. It is an older type adapted property situated on a main road on the outskirts of Burnley town centre. At the time of the inspection there were nine people accommodated at the service.
The service was managed by 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. Although at the time of this inspection there were two managers registered with the Commission, one was no longer working at the service.
At our last inspection on the 7 and 8 January 2016 the overall rating of the service was ‘requires Improvement’. There was a breach of the regulations; this related to the provider not having proper oversight of Oakmont House, including a lack of effective systems for checking, improving and developing the service. We therefore asked the provider to make improvements. We received an action plan from the provider indicating how and when they would meet the relevant legal requirements. At this inspection we found sufficient improvements had been made. At our last inspection, we also made recommendations relating to the assessment and management of risks, infection prevention and control, medicines management and working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We found improvements had also been made on these matters.
During this inspection we found there were no breaches of the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. However we found some further progress was needed with medicines management and therefore made a recommendation.
We found there were management and leadership arrangements in place to support the effective day to day running of the service. The new registered manager had made a number of improvements and the provider was monitoring the service to ensure they had proper oversight.
Systems were in place to maintain a safe environment for people who used the service and others. We found some matters were in need of attention and the registered manager took action to make improvements.
Recruitment practices were in place to make sure appropriate checks were carried out before staff started working at the service. There were enough staff available to provide care and support and we were told staffing arrangements were kept under review.
Staff were aware of the signs and indicators of abuse and they knew what to if they had any concerns. Staff had received training on safeguarding and protection matters.
Arrangements were in place to gather information on people’s backgrounds, their needs, abilities and preferences before they used the service. The registered manager had introduced a way of promoting a smooth admission to the service.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Policies and processes at the service supported this practice.
We found people were effectively supported with their healthcare needs and medical appointments. Changes in people’s health and well-being were monitored and responded to.
People were satisfied with the meals provided at Oakmount House. Arrangements were in place to offer a balanced diet. People were actively involved with devising menus, which meant they could make choices on the meals provided.
People made positive comments about the care and support they received from staff. We observed positive and respectful interactions between people who used the service and staff.
Each person had a care plan, describing their individual needs and choices. This provided guidance for staff on how to provide support. People had been involved with planning and reviewing their care. People’s privacy, individuality and dignity was respected.
People had been actively involved with the up-grading of the premises, including choosing furniture, colour schemes and soft furnishings.
People were supported with their hobbies and interests, including activities in the local community and keeping in touch with their relatives and friends. There were opportunities for skill development and confidence building.
There were processes in place for dealing with complaints. There was a formal procedure to manage, investigate and respond to people’s complaints and concerns. People could also express concerns or dissatisfaction during their care reviews and during residents meetings.
There were systems in place to consult with people who used the service and staff, to assess and monitor the quality of their experiences.
Oakmount House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to nine people. The home supports people with mental ill health. It is an older type large terraced property, situated on a main road on the outskirts of Burnley centre and close to the town’s amenities. Communal areas consist of a lounge, dining room, kitchen, quiet area and bathrooms. There is a separate laundry in the basement. Accommodation is provided in single bedrooms some having en-suite facilities. At the time of our visit there were nine people living in the home.
At the time of the inspection the registered manager was absent from the service. 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.
At the previous inspection on 19 and 23 February 2015, we asked the provider to make improvements in relation to the safety and suitability of the premises. We did not receive an action plan from the provider indicating how and when they would meet the relevant legal requirements. At this inspection we found sufficient improvements had been made, however further action was required to minimise risks to the health safety and welfare of people using the service. We have therefore made a recommendation in respect of this matter.
During this inspection we found the provider was in breach of one regulation of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This related to the provider not having proper oversight of Oakmont House, including a lack of effective systems for checking, improving and developing the service. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
We have also made recommendations for improved practice in relation to the assessment and management of risks, infection prevention and control, medicines management and working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Following the inspection we received information from the provider that told us action was being taken in respect of these matters. We will check for improvements at our next inspection.
The people we spoke with indicated satisfaction with the care and support they experienced at the Oakmount House. Their comments included, “Things are alright” and “Everything is fine.” Some people did express dissatisfaction with the new lounge chairs, the acting manager was to purse this matter at the next residents meeting.
We found there were interim management and leadership arrangements in place to support the day to day running of the service. Staff indicated the acting manager was supportive and approachable.
Staff were aware of the signs and indicators of abuse and they knew what to if they had any concerns. Proper character checks had been carried out before new staff started working at the service. There were enough staff available to provide care and support and we were told staffing arrangements were kept under review.
We found people were supported to make their own decisions and choices. They were effectively supported with their healthcare needs and medical appointments. Changes in people’s health and well-being were monitored and responded to.
People were satisfied with the meals provided at Oakmount House. Arrangements were in place to offer a balanced diet. People were actively involved in devising menus, which meant they could make choices on the meals provided.
People made positive comments about the care and support they received from staff. We observed positive and respectful interactions between people using the service and staff.
There was a focus upon promoting and maintaining independence skills. Each person had a care plan, describing their individual needs and choices. This provided clear guidance for staff on how to provide support. People’s privacy, individuality and dignity was respected.
People were supported with their hobbies and interests, including activities in the local community. Their well-being was monitored and reviews of their needs were held regularly. People were supported to keep in touch with their relatives and friends.
People could express concerns or dissatisfaction in their one to one meetings and during the residents' meetings. There was formal complaints procedure which was being reviewed .
There were systems in place to ensure all staff received regular training. We found some training was overdue, but action had been taken to address this matter. Staff supervision sessions were being re-introduced. Staff spoken with were positive and enthusiastic about their role in supporting people.
We carried out an inspection of Oakmount House on the 19 and 23 of February 2015. The first day of our visit was unannounced. We last inspected Oakmount House on 4 November 2013 to check whether improvements we required to be made had been completed. We found the issues raised had been dealt with satisfactorily.
Oakmount House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to nine people. The home supports people with mental ill health. It is an older type property situated on a main road on the outskirts of Burnley town centre and close to the town’s amenities. Communal areas consist of lounge and dining room and kitchen. There is a separate laundry. Accommodation is provided in single bedrooms and one shared bedroom. At the time of our visit there were eight people living in the home.
The service was managed by 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People using the service were involved in decisions about how their care and support would be provided. The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities in promoting people’s choice and decision making under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the DoLS. We found the location to be meeting the requirements of DoLS.
People told us they were cared for very well and they felt safe. Staff treated them well and gave them all the support they needed. One person said, “I love living here, it’s my home. We all get on well together. Nobody tells us what we can or cannot do.” Another person told us, “I’ve been here a long time and I wouldn’t like to go anywhere else. I feel perfectly safe here.”
People told us they determined their lifestyle and did not have to conform to any institutional practices. Routines were flexible and people had their preferred daily living plan recorded in their care records. This supported people’s varying needs being met at times that suited them and prevented institutional routines and practices occurring.
Staff gave a good account of and showed understanding of the varying needs of different people we had discussed with them. Staff said they enjoyed their work and worked well together for the benefit of people living in the home. Staff were clear about their responsibilities and duty of care.
People were cared for by staff who had been recruited safely and were both trained and receiving training to support them in their duties. Staff were kept up to date with changes in people’s needs and circumstances on a daily basis. We found there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to attend to people’s needs and keep them safe.
Contractual arrangements were in place to make sure staff did not gain financially from people they cared for at the home. For example, staff were not allowed to accept gifts, be involved in wills or bequests. This meant people could be confident they had some protection against financial abuse and this was closely monitored.
Individual risk assessments had been completed for all activities and were centred on the needs of the person. People’s rights to take risks were acknowledged and management strategies had been drawn up to guide staff and people using the service on how to manage identified risks. People were supported to use community facilities.
People had their medicines when they needed them. Medicines were managed safely. We found accurate records and appropriate processes were in place for the ordering, receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines.
The home was warm, clean and hygienic. There were infection control policies and procedures in place and the service held a maximum five star rating for food hygiene from Environmental Health following a self-assessment.
People told us they were satisfied with their bedrooms and living arrangements. Required maintenance work was being identified and monitored for completion by the registered manager. However we found radiators to be very hot and water temperatures exceeded a safe bathing temperature. This meant people were at risk of accidental scalding and burns. The registered manager said this would be raised as a safety issue with the registered provider. This was a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we have asked the registered provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
Each person had an individual care plan. These were sufficiently detailed to ensure people’s care was personalised and they were kept under review. People were given additional support when they required this. Referrals had been made to the relevant health and social care professionals for advice and support when people’s needs had changed. This meant people received prompt, co-ordinated and effective care.
Health and social care professionals commented “They definitely want the best for people with quality lifestyles and giving them a feeling of self-worth.” And “They make sure people are not marginalised and will try to give people the same opportunities as everyone else. Very professional.”
People said the food served was very good and they had everything they wanted. They could have hot and cold drinks when they wanted. One person told us, “I go shopping every week with the staff for the food. We choose what we want on the menus at our meetings. The food is good and I can have what I want. The staff are good cooks.”
People told us they were confident to raise any issue of concern with the registered manager, staff and with the registered provider and that it would be taken seriously. They also told us they were encouraged to express their views and were kept up to date with any planned changes.
Confidence was expressed in the management of the home by people using the service, staff and health and social care professionals who visited the home on a regular basis. They described the management team and staff as ‘being professional’ and ‘doing a ‘sterling job’.
At our recent visit in November we did not speak directly to people living in the home about these matters but spoke to the manager and looked round the premises. We found all the areas we looked at, and accessible to residents, were clean and free from unpleasant odours. We also found that some of the property restoration and maintenance work had been completed, and other major work was in progress.
We discussed all matters with the manager. She told us there had been changes to the cleaning routines in the home and that another member of staff had been made responsible for ensuring the home was kept clean. She also explained the progress of the major restoration work being completed in one half of the building. There had been problems with builders not meeting deadlines and their verbal commitments to undertake the work. This meant some work had been delayed. At the time of our visit this work had commenced. The registered manager agreed to send us an updated timescale for completion.
People living in the home were happy with the support they had from staff and with the choices they had in their daily lives. Three people told us about what they did each day, for example trips to town and to a social centre and day trips out. One person confirmed the health care and contact with health care professionals they had. People told us they knew how to complain and would speak up if they were not happy with anything.
We found people's medication was managed safely and properly and that people received the correct medicines. Those who were able to administer some or all of their medicines were supported to do so.
This inspection again highlighted concerns about the premises. We have had on going concerns for a number of years and have required the provider to make specific improvements over this period of time. There is a current improvement action plan from an inspection in September 2012 when the home was found to be non compliant in "safety and suitability of the premises" (regulation 15). This was monitored at a visit in February this year and sufficient progress had been made. However since then the action plan has not been adhered to and major work not completed in a timely way. Parts of the premises were still in a poor state of maintenance and appearance.
At this inspection in February 2013 we found the provider, with the support of the local authority, had taken sufficient action to safeguard residents' finances. A major area of the home had been considerably renovated and the appearance was much improved. We were told there were plans to complete similar renovations in another part of the home within a reasonable timescale.
The residents we spoke with were aware of the changes to the arrangements for their finances and spoke positively of these changes. They also appreciated the improvements that had been made to the premises. The members of staff spoken with also regarded all the changes as positive, and felt they enhanced residents' independence, morale and well being.
We saw staff treating people with respect, understanding and patience. People living in the home were happy with the care and support given to them and with the choices they had in their daily routines and daily lives. One person told us about the day trips they had been on this year and told us they had decided where they wanted to go. People also told us they were pleased with some of the changes in the home - the new kitchen, new furniture and more single bedrooms being created. Two people were pleased with their relatively new en suite bedrooms.
We found on this visit some matters had improved, for example, some parts of the premises, cleanliness and the home's own quality monitoring checks. However there were still matters of concern. The premises/environment was still unpleasant and poorly maintained in places, and we had concerns that service users finances were not being managed properly.
Since the last visit the kitchen had been refitted to a good standard, and therefore was considerably improved. However there were no other improvements to the general maintenance and fabric of the premises/environment. Although people were settled living in Oakmount, overall we felt that allowing the poor standard of the environment to continue could mean that people's right to pleasant and comfortable accommodation was not respected.
time and would not want to live anywhere else. One person had a downstairs room recently converted to a bedroom to cater for some mobility problems so that they did not have to move to another home.
At this visit we did not talk to the people living at Oakmount as much as we would normally do about their views of the home, as the purpose of this particular inspection was to check up on the progress made with the improvements that were needed at the inspection in July. However it was clear that people felt settled living in the home, and the person referred to above was pleased with their new room. However we were also told that this person, and the other resident who also had a new (downstairs) bedroom, had not had any choice in the decorating or furnishing of these rooms.
Another person had acquired some new furnishings for their bedroom and was pleased with the result. This person told us that they were "not bothered" by the conversion of a lounge to a bed room (see above), but another person said they ddin't like the changes.
Apart from the bed room conversions we found no improvement to the general maintenance and fabric of the premises/environment. Although people felt settled living in Oakmount, overall we felt that allowing the poor standard of the environment to continue could mean that people's right to pleasant and comfortable accommodation was not repected.