You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 21 October 2017

Oasis Care provides a homecare service in the Airedale and South Craven areas of Yorkshire. At the time of our inspection they were providing personal care to 29 adults who were living with dementia and/or had physical disabilities. Most of the care and support provided was prompting and assisting people with personal care, meal preparation and medication with a low number of complex care packages.

The inspection took place between the 18 and 25 September 2017 and was announced. At the last inspection in June 2016 we rated the service ‘Requires Improvement’ overall and found three breaches of regulations relating to recruitment procedures, medicine management and governance.

At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the service was no longer in breach of regulation. We rated the service ‘good’ overall as we found a good quality and person centred service. People provided good feedback about the service and its staff. We identified some minor improvements were needed to governance to demonstrate the service was consistently well led. However due to the small size of the service and the oversight provided by the manager, we did not identify any impact on people who used the service. We had confidence these issues would be addressed by the management team.

A registered manager was in place but they had recently left the service. They were in the process of deregistering and the provider was in the process of becoming the new 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 provided positive feedback about the service and said care met their individual needs. They said staff delivered a timely and reliable service and treated them with dignity and respect. Good relationships had developed between people and staff. People’s views and comments were listened to and acted on to make improvements to the service.

Care and support was delivered safely. Medicines were managed safely and clear records of the support staff provided was recorded. Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and care plans instructed staff how to undertake tasks such as moving and handling in a safe manner.

There were enough staff deployed to ensure a safe and timely service. Staff rotas were manageable and enabled people to receive care calls at roughly the same time each day. A small amount of travel time was included to enable staff to stay with people for the full allocated time.

Safe recruitment procedures were in place to ensure caring staff with the right values were recruited. Staff received a range of training on induction and at regular intervals to ensure they had the right skills to care for people.

The service was acting within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People’s consent was sought prior to the delivery of care and support.

The service liaised with health professionals over people’s healthcare needs. This was documented within people’s care plans to show the interventions undertaken. Staff were clear what they would do in a medical emergency to ensure people were kept safe.

People’s care needs were assessed by the manager prior to using the service. These were used to develop care plans which varied in their detail depending on the complexity of people’s care and support needs. Records provided evidence people received timely care in line with their care plans and people told us the standard of care was high.

People, relatives and staff said the office were helpful and they were usually able to get through to the manager should they need to. Staff praised the manager and said they were supportive and approachable.

Audits

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 21 October 2017

The service was safe.

Improvements had been made to the medicine management system with better evidence recorded of the medicine support provided to people.

Risks to people�s health and safety were assessed and people told us they felt safe using the service and in the company of staff.

There were enough staff to ensure a safe and reliable service. Safe recruitment procedures were in place.

Effective

Good

Updated 21 October 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received a range of appropriate training delivered face to face by an external training provider. Supervisions and appraisals needed bringing up-to-date.

The service was acting within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

The service worked with health professionals if people�s health changed.

Caring

Good

Updated 21 October 2017

The service was caring.

People told us staff were kind and caring and treated them well. People said staff respected them. We saw good relationships had developed between people and staff.

People were given choices as to how care and support was delivered.

Responsive

Good

Updated 21 October 2017

The service was responsive

People�s care needs were assessed and plans of care put in place which staff followed. People said care needs were met. We saw the timeliness of the service was good with people receiving visits at the times they needed them.

People were able to raise concerns with the service. The management team was approachable and listened to people.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 21 October 2017

The service was not consistently well led.

Improvements were needed to some systems to ensure supervisions and appraisals took place in a consistent way and to ensure oversight of falls and minor complaints.

People and staff praised the service and how it was run. They said the service delivered person centred care that met people�s needs. The manager was described as �hands on�, caring and approachable.

People�s feedback was welcomed and used to make improvements to the service.