• Care Home
  • Care home

Oxford House Nursing Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

204 Stoke Road, Slough, Berkshire, SL2 5AY (01753) 533554

Provided and run by:
Oxford House Nursing Home

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Oxford House Nursing Home 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 Oxford House Nursing Home, you can give feedback on this service.

12 February 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Oxford House Nursing Home is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 28 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 34 people.

We found the following examples of good practice.

• There was a spacious and secure indoor area to facilitate visits from relatives. An easy booking system was in place to stagger visitors to minimise contact with staff and people using the service. At the time of our inspection, visitors to the home were restricted, with the exception of people at the end of their life. This decision was based on considerations such as the national lock down, local infection rates and regular updates from the local health protection agency.

• The environment had been adapted to encourage social distancing. Communal areas were arranged to enable enough space between people. We saw people engaged in social activities, laughing and enjoying themselves in a safe environment. The staff changing room was located external to the main home to reduce the risk of cross contamination.

• An extra nurse was allocated on every shift and maximum staff ratios were maintained to increase capacity to support people safely, manage additional Covid-19 related tasks and increased staff welfare breaks.

• The service had developed a specific care plan for suspected or confirmed Covid-19 cases to identify and meet people’s needs. This included clear staff instructions for Covid-19 related procedures to keep people safe.

22 February 2018

During a routine inspection

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 information is in the detailed findings below.

10 September 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 10 September 2015 and was carried out as part of our schedule of comprehensive inspections. The inspection was unannounced which meant the provider did not know we would be visiting.

Oxford House Nursing Home provides nursing care and accommodation for up to 34 predominantly older people.

At the time of our inspection there were 30 people living in the home. 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 found a very good standard of care practice. People told us that they were very satisfied with the care they received and were settled and content. Relatives and health and social care professionals involved with the service told us their experiences were positive and that they were appropriately involved and supported effectively by staff.

Staff treated people as individuals and knew their likes, dislikes, preferences and care needs.

The provider, registered manager and staff from all levels of the service we spoke with were committed to provide a high standard of person-centred care.

Staff had received training in how to ensure people’s rights were respected and how to safeguard people from abuse. The standard of training delivered to staff was good and helped them develop as individuals as well as to maintain good care standards.

Care plans were detailed and contained relevant risk assessments. They were used by staff as working documents which supported staff to provide the care and support that people needed.

Staffing levels were maintained at an appropriate and effective level and were adjusted to meet people’s needs. Staff told us they were supported by the home’s management and that they worked together as a team, including the provider, in order to provide effective support to people.

The service actively sought feedback from people on the quality of the service they received. This was used to identify areas where the service could improve, for example in planning refurbishment and re-decoration of those parts of the home which required it.

5 December 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with seven people who used the service. They told us they were well looked after. One person told us the staff who looked after them were "Wonderful." Another person commented "It is a real home."

We spoke with one relative, who was very positive about the quality of the staff team. They told us they had "No problems" with staff, although they felt they worked very hard and could perhaps do with more of them to share the load. They said their relative benefitted from a settled and consistent staff team. This meant people were supported by staff who knew them and who understood their needs.

When we looked at medication practice and recording we found appropriate arrangements were in place and saw medication records were accurate and complete.

People who used the service, their relatives and health and social care professionals were all positive about the standard of care provided. This was explicitly credited by them to the competence, skill and attitude of staff at all levels. Staff told us they received regular training which helped them maintain their skills. They said, for example, they had received training in safeguarding and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We looked at training records and saw a training matrix which set out all the training staff received. This showed the management team were able to monitor which staff had completed specific training and what training was due. This ensured people were supported by appropriately trained staff. Staff told us they felt very well supported by the manager. Although records showed staff had received formal supervision, this was not always recognised as such by them.

We found the provider took account of complaints and comments to improve the service. We saw the home had a complaints policy and procedure which was readily accessible to people who lived in the home and their relatives. The people we spoke with told us they were aware of this. However, they indicated they would be more likely to raise any concerns or complaints, if they had them, direct with the staff, manager or provider. There was a process in place to obtain the views of people who used the service and their relatives about the standard of care provided. This information was then used to improve the service.

20 July 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with six people who use the service and with two relatives.They told us they had the information they needed to make an informed decision about moving into Oxford House. One person said in many ways it was better than they had expected.

People were satisfied their views about care and support provided had been listened to and respected by staff. One person said they did not feel under any pressure to do things in a way they did not want to.

All of the people we spoke with said they could make choices. They told us they had a choice of what they ate and where. They said they could choose what time they got up and went to bed and what activities, if any, they took part in.

They were very positive about the skills of the nursing and care staff and the standard of care they received or saw."They are all very good" one person told us.

We saw a number of letters of thanks from relatives of people who had lived at Oxford House. These included very positive comments about the standard of care provided.

People told us they were able to go to regular residents' meetings where they could raise any issues or concerns they wanted to.