You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 16 March 2018

Our inspection took place on 22 February 2018 and was unannounced.

Oxford House Nursing Home is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. We regulate both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Oxford House Nursing Home can accommodate 34 people across two floors, each of which has separate adapted facilities. The service provides care to older adults. People live in their own bedrooms and have access to communal facilities such as a bathrooms, lounges and activities areas. At the time of our inspection, there were 28 people living at the service.

The provider is required to have a registered manager as part of their conditions of registration. 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 time of our inspection, there was a registered manager in post.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Why the service is rated good:

We found people were protected against abuse or neglect. People had personalised risk assessments tailored to their support requirements. We saw sufficient staff were deployed to provide people’s support. People’s medicines were safely managed. The service was clean and infections were prevented and controlled.

The service was compliant with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and associated codes of practice. People were assisted to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practise.

Staff received good induction, training, supervision and support. This ensured their knowledge, skills and experience were appropriate for their caring roles. People’s care preferences, likes and dislikes were assessed, recorded and respected. We found there was appropriate access to other community healthcare professionals. People were supported to maintain a healthy lifestyle. People had adequate nutrition and hydration to ensure their wellbeing. We made a recommendation about adaptation, design and decoration of the premises.

Staff had developed compassionate relationships with people who used the service and relatives. There was complimentary feedback from a variety of sources. People told us they were able to participate in care planning and reviews and we saw evidence of decision-making that promoted people’s independence. People’s privacy and dignity was respected when care was provided to them.

The service provided person-centred care. Care plans were thorough and contained information of how to support people in the best possible way. We saw there was an appropriate complaints system in place. People and their families had a say in the everyday decision-making and operation of the service. The service used nationally-recognised methods of assessing, managing and monitoring people’s end of life care.

The service was well-led. There was a positive workplace culture and staff felt that management listened to what they had to say. We saw the management used tools to measure the safety and quality of care. The service had developed strong relationships with the social and healthcare community in the area. We made a recommendation about the Accessible Information Standard.

Further inform

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 March 2018

The service remains good.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 March 2018

The service remains good.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 March 2018

The service remains good.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 March 2018

The service remains good.

Well-led

Good

Updated 16 March 2018

The service remains good.