• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Craven House Oakdene

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

West Lane, Sutton-in-craven, Keighley, BD20 7AS (01535) 633268

Provided and run by:
Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds)

All Inspections

27 February 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 27 February 2016 and was unannounced. There were no breaches of regulation at the last inspection on 24 September 2014.

Craven House Oakdene provides care and support for up to 4 people who have a learning disability. The home is situated in a single story building with disabled access. All bedrooms are single and two have en-suite facilities. The lounge and dining room are spacious and comfortable and within easy access of the all the bedrooms.

The home has a registered manager in place. 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 people were cared for and supported by sufficient numbers of suitably qualified and experienced staff. Robust recruitment procedures were in place to make sure suitable staff worked with people who used the service and staff completed an induction when they started work. Staff received the training and support required to meet people’s needs. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff ensured that people were supported to make decisions about their care. People were cared for in line with current legislation and they were consulted about choices as much as possible.

Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding vulnerable adults and knew what to do to keep people safe. Relatives we spoke with also told us they thought people were safe at the home. There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines safely.

People’s care plans contained sufficient and relevant information to provide consistent care and support. People’s mealtime experience was good with ample assistance available for those who required one to one help with their meal. People received good support which ensured their health care needs were met. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity.

People were supported to take part in activities and daily occupations which they found both meaningful and fulfilling. Relatives told us that they appreciated how staff had thought of new ways to make sure people could join in daily routines and events they could enjoy. Staff had also been responsible for encouraging and supporting people with new interests which they had benefited from. The home made a particular effort to communicate with relatives and other interested parties to make sure that people were ‘given a voice’ despite their complex needs.

We observed throughout our visit, and were told by relatives, that people were treated with kindness and compassion. We saw people smiling and engaging with staff. Staff knew how best to communicate with people. This included the use of gestures, touch and key phrases, which the person understood. Staff responded quickly to people’s changing needs and knew people well enough to know when a subtle facial expression or a sound indicated they needed assistance or support. Needs were regularly monitored through staff updates and staff meetings. We saw staff had a good rapport with people and worked together as a team.

The home was regularly cleaned and staff were trained in infection control.

People’s needs in relation to food and drink were met. People enjoyed the meals and their suggestions had been incorporated into menus. We observed that the dining experience was pleasant and that people had choice and variety in their diet.

The service had good management and leadership in place. People had opportunities to comment on the quality of service and influence service delivery. Effective monitoring systems were in place which ensured people received safe quality care. Complaints were welcomed and were investigated and responded to appropriately. The registered manager worked alongside the team, supporting the staff to ensure people received the care and support they needed. People told us they got on with the registered manager and that they were approachable and listened to them.

There were quality assurance systems in place which were used to make improvements to the service. We sampled a range of safety audits and looked at the results of a recent quality survey sent out to relatives, healthcare professionals, including social workers.

24 September 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five 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 -

Is the service safe?

There were procedures in place to monitor the quality of service being provided to people who used the service. We saw evidence of weekly medication audits, health and safety and fire emergency checks. This ensured the health and safety of people who used the service.

Care plans were underpinned by risk assessments related to a person`s mobility, risk of falls and personal care needs. We saw evidence that risk assessments were reviewed on a regular basis. This helped ensure the safety of people who used the service.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) become important when a person is judged to lack the capacity to make an informed decision related to their care and treatment. The provider told us no applications for DoLS authorisations had been made but knew the procedure to be followed if an application needed to be made.

Is the service effective?

We looked at four care plans and saw the person`s likes, dislikes, choices and preferences had been recorded during the assessment. This showed people had been involved during the creation of their care plans.

We found the design and layout of the bungalow was of an adequate size to meet people needs. The fixtures, fittings and furniture we saw were of a good quality.

Is the service caring?

We spent time in communal areas during our inspection. There was a calm and relaxed atmosphere and we observed good interaction between staff members and people who used the service. There were staff present at all times to provide any care or support as required.

We spoke with one family member and were told, "I feel very lucky to have Craven House. It`s a lovely place and the staff do a remarkable job."

Is the service responsive?

On the day of our inspection, one person attended a local day centre and another person was at college. These activities had been agreed when their care plans were produced. Other activities people took part in included, horse riding, swimming and dancing.

A complaints procedure was observed in the provider`s policies and procedures handbook. An easy read version was displayed on the wall at Craven House. We saw a dedicated complaints form was kept for recording complaints.

Is the service well led?

General Practitioner and other professional visits and appointments were recorded in people`s care plans. We were told by the manager that the community nurse attended the home every day. This reflected a multi-disciplinary approach to providing care and helped ensure people who used the service received care and support when they needed it.

Staff meetings were held every two months. We looked at the minutes from the last meeting which was held during July 2014. We saw several suggestions that had been made by staff members had been considered and implemented as appropriate.

17 February 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

In December 2013 we carried out an inspection of this service. We judged, at that time, that improvements were needed to the management of medication at the home. At this inspection, we found improvements had been made and the issues we identified had been addressed.

10 December 2013

During a routine inspection

We were not able to communicate with some people living at the home due to their complex communication needs. We saw however that people were at ease with staff and that the staff knew the people they were supporting well. People appeared relaxed and comfortable in their surroundings. We observed that staff were caring and sensitive in the way they supported individuals. However we asked the provider to consider the staffing levels at the home to ensure they always meet people's needs and that people are kept safe at all times.

We saw that the people were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment. There were good cleaning routines in place and staff were aware of how to minimise the spread of infection in the home. This was important to help make sure that people were protected from the risk of infection, or other illnesses. However we did find that medication was not always administered in a safe way and that policies and procedures were not always followed.

We found that staff were trained and well supported to do their jobs. This included consistent up to date training, regular supervision and staff meetings. We also saw that there were good systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.

14 August 2012

During a routine inspection

People were not able to tell us what they thought but through observations they appeared relaxed and comfortable with the staff and were freely able to access all the areas of the home that they wished to.