Oaklands Care Home

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Quality assurance systems and processes did not always identify concerns we found during the inspection.

Care plans and risk assessments were in place however, some required more detail to guide staff how to support people safely.

People’s medicines were managed safely however, not all ‘as required’ topical medicines had a PRN protocol available at the time of the inspection. PRN protocols did not always include enough guidance to enable staff to administer the medication safely.

Staff were recruited safely but some improvements were required.

People could be confident they were supported by staff who had access to guidance and understood how to keep them safe. Staff’s knowledge of the people they supported was good and they were able to tell us about the risks associated with people’s care and how to minimise these.

People were protected from the risk of infection because staff used protective equipment however, on inspection the providers safe entry processes were not followed when the inspectors arrived.

Incidents were used to identify improvements that could be made to people’s care and support.

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 knew how to raise concerns. They had confidence in the registered manager. Incidents and accidents were monitored by the registered manager. Where accidents and incidents occurred in the home the registered manager ensured appropriate action was taken for people to reduce the likelihood of injury or reoccurrence.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for the service under the previous provider was Requires Improvement, published on 26 June 2019.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

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 see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this full report.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ Temperatures were taken on entry and a visiting questionnaire was completed to screen for symptoms prior to entry. This included contact details for "test and trace," should there be a necessity to do so.

¿ Although outbreak restrictions were in place at the time of the inspection, alternative measures such as window visits, patio visits,video calls, emails and letters were utilised to update and maintain contact with family and friends.

¿ We observed clear signage and procedures regarding isolation when people were re-admitted back to the home from hospital settings and staff were trained on how to keep people safe from the risk of infection.

¿ The layout of the lounge area had been changed to support social distancing.

¿ Personal protective equipment (PPE) was used effectively to safeguard staff and people using the service and national guidance was implemented.

¿ Staff had received training and guidance regarding infection control, and how to respond to the Covid 19 pandemic. Throughout the inspection we observed staff demonstrating knowledge of good infection control practice.

¿ We observed the home looked clean and hygienic. The registered manager told us high touch areas such as handles, and switches received additional cleaning daily. Environmental, coronavirus and infection control policies, procedures and audits were in place to ensure infection prevention procedures were robust.