Archived: Oak Mount

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected.

We used the information to answer the five key questions we always ask;

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us.

Is the service safe-

The service was safe.

Each person's care file had risk assessments in place which covered areas of potential risk such as managing behaviour which could be challenging, smoking, falls and self-neglect.

We found people were supported to take their prescribed medications correctly and safely and the medication administration records were accurate and up to date.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Whilst no applications had been submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

The results of a Client Satisfaction Survey carried out by the provider in November 2013 showed us people who used the service felt safe and confident about raising any concerns they might have. One person wrote 'I am very happy to be here, I feel safe' and another person wrote 'If I had any concerns I would speak to my key worker or any member of staff.'

Is the service effective -

The service was effective.

People had an individual care plan which set out their care/support needs and goals. We saw wherever possible people had been involved in the assessment of their health and care needs and had contributed to developing their care plan.

The input of other health care professionals involved in people's care and treatment was clearly recorded in their care plans. This demonstrated people were receiving appropriate support to meet their health and social care needs.

Is the service caring '

The service was caring.

The staff we spoke with demonstrated a good knowledge of people's needs and were able to explain how individuals preferred their care and support to be delivered.

We looked at the results of a Client Satisfaction Survey carried out by the provider in November 2013. The survey was completed by nine of the ten people who were using the service at that time. The results showed people were either 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied' with the support they received. One person said they were 'totally happy' with their support worker. Another said 'I would always say if there was something wrong'.

Is the service responsive '

The service was responsive.

Wherever possible people who used the service were involved in discussions about their care and the risk factors associated with this. Individual choices and decisions were documented in the care plans and reviewed on a regular basis.

All the people who completed the survey sent by the provider in November 2013 said their support plans included their goals.

We saw the provider had well established processes for consulting with people who used the service and for giving them feedback on the actions taken in response to their views.

Is the service well led '

The service was well led.

We saw there was a quality assurance monitoring system in place that was designed to continually monitor and identify shortfalls in the service and any non-compliance with the essential standards of quality and safety.

There was evidence that learning from incidents and investigations took place and appropriate changes were implemented.

The provider had two achieved two nationally recognised quality awards; they were Investors in People and Investors in Diversity. In addition, they had signed up to the Mindful Employers Charter. This demonstrated their commitment to providing high quality services through the recruitment and retention of a skilled and supported workforce.

We did not speak to people who used the service on this occasion. People who used the service had complex needs and it was not always easy for them to tell us about their experiences. However, we saw evidence people who used the service had been consulted about safeguarding, protection from abuse and professional boundaries. We saw that people said they like living at Oak Mount and felt safe.

We talked with a relative of a person who used the service and they told us they were very happy with the support and care provided at Oak Mount. They said "its lovely there, they are very caring", they said the staff "treat people like human beings". They said they were 'content' knowing their relative was safe, well fed and cared for. They had no concerns about the service.

We found people's needs were identified and met and there were enough staff to provide people with the support and care they needed. We found the provider had effective measures in place to make sure any staff they employed were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

We found people were supported to make comments and/or complaints and their concerns were taken seriously and acted on.

We found improvements were needed to the provider's policies and procedures for safeguarding people who used the service.

People we spoke with told us they were involved in making decisions about how their care was provided. One person said, "I enjoy being here. The staff treat us well. They encourage me to do things, that are probably in my best interests, like spending more time in the communal areas, but they respect my decisions and I'm not expected to do anything that I don't want to. I enjoy my private time and they respect that."

Staff were knowledgeable about the people's care needs and what they should do to support them. However care records were missing important information about people's planned care.

Staff training was kept up to date so that staff could care for people safely and to an appropriate standard. We saw medicines were properly administered and handled appropriately.

Improvements had been made to the environment since our last inspection.