• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Oaklands Care Home

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

Lower Common Road, West Wellow, Romsey, Hampshire, SO51 6BT (01794) 322005

Provided and run by:
Delicourt Limited

All Inspections

14 September 2017

During a routine inspection

We carried out an unannounced inspection of this home on 6 and 7 September 2016 and found multiple breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. People were at risk of social isolation due to the lack of activities on offer to them (Regulation 9). People did not always receive their medicines safely (Regulation 12). The registered provider had failed to ensure the home environment was clean and free from offensive odours (Regulation 15). The registered provider had failed to respond in reasonable time in respect of maintenance requests (Regulation 17). The registered provider had failed to ensure there were adequate numbers of suitably skilled, experienced and qualified staff deployed to meet the needs of people (Regulation 18). Following this inspection we served requirement notices on the registered provider. They sent us an action plan which gave details on the actions they were going to take to be fully compliant with all the Regulations by end of November 2016.

We carried out an unannounced inspection of this home on 14 and 15 September 2017 to check the provider had made the required improvements. At this inspection we found that, whilst the registered provider had taken some steps to address the concerns we found in September 2016, they had failed to be compliant with all of the required Regulations. You will find further information on the breaches of regulation we found in the full version of the report.

The overall rating for this provider is ‘Inadequate’. This means that it would be placed into ‘Special measures’ by CQC. The purpose of special measures is to:

¿

¿ Ensure that providers found to be providing inadequate care significantly improve

¿ Provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and work with, or signpost to, other organisations in the system to ensure improvements are made.

¿ Provide a clear timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of care they provide or we will seek to take further action, for example cancel their registration.

Services placed in special measures would be inspected again within six months. If insufficient improvements had been made such that there remained a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we would take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service. This would lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they did not improve. The service would be kept under review and if needed urgent enforcement action would be considered.

However, on 11 October 2017 following our inspection, the registered provider advised CQC of their intention to close this home. An application has been received to remove this location from our register.

The home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 45 older people, some of whom live with mental health problems or dementia. Accommodation is arranged over four floors with stair and lift access to all areas. At the time of our inspection 39 people lived at the home and one person was in hospital.

At the time of our inspection the home did not have 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. A new manager had been employed at the home in June 2017 and had begun the process to register with the Commission as the registered manager. However, they left the service the week before our inspection. Another manager, (who had previously been registered with the Commission in this home and knows the home well), had now begun the process to re-register with the Commission as the registered manager for this home.

Whilst there were safe recruitment practices in the home, there were not sufficient staff with suitable skills, knowledge and experience deployed to meet the needs of people. There was a high dependency on the use of agency staff in the home.

Medicines were not managed in a safe and effective manner. Medicines orders were not always managed effectively and people did not always receive their medicines in a timely way to ensure their safety and welfare.

Risk assessments had not always been completed to support staff in mitigating the risks associated with people’s care. Care records were poor and lacked up to date information and order.

Whilst systems were in place to support staff in recognising signs of abuse, they had not identified any concerns about the safety and welfare of people in the home as we found during our inspection.

People were not always valued and respected as individuals. Staff did not always know people well and could not always demonstrate how to meet people’s individualised needs. Whilst some care staff cared for people in a kind and empathetic way, we observed some very poor practices which did not always show respect and dignity for people. These practices were not challenged by other staff or the registered provider. The training staff had received was not always reflected in the care some staff provided.

People did not always receive care which was person centred and individual to their specific needs. Institutionalised routines were in place which did not reflect people’s wishes and preferences. There was a lack of meaningful activities and interactions in the home to reduce the risk of social isolation for people.

There was a lack of leadership and organisation in the management of the home. Staff did not have a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities.

Whilst there was a system in place to allow people to express any concerns or complaints they may have, there was a lack of robust and effective audit in the home to monitor and review the quality and effectiveness of the service provided at the home.

Where people could not consent to their care, staff sought appropriate guidance and followed legislation designed to protect people’s rights and freedom. However, care records did not always reflect this information.

People received nutritious food in line with their needs and preferences although care records were not always an accurate reflection of these.

The home was clean and maintenance was completed in a timely way.

6 September 2016

During a routine inspection

Oaklands is a residential care home that supports up to 45 older people who may be living with dementia or other mental health conditions. When we visited 41 people were living there. The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider.

People were at risk because the provider did not have effective arrangements in place to keep the environment clean.

People were at risk of social isolation because the provider did not have suitable activities available for people to participate in at different times of the day

Arrangements for supporting people to take their medicines were not always safe.

The provider did not consistently respond to maintenance requests.

The culture of the home appeared to be task focused and often lacked a person centred approach.

Interactions between staff and people using the service were mixed.

Staff were appropriately trained and skilled to deliver safe care. They all received a thorough induction before they started work and fully understood their responsibilities to report any concerns of possible abuse.

Information regarding diagnosed conditions was documented in people’s care plans and risks to health and wellbeing were discussed daily during staff meetings. Staff consistently told us they communicated risks associated with people during hand over meetings and through reviewing people's care.

Referrals to health care professionals were made quickly when people became unwell. Each health care professional told us the staff were responsive to people’s changing health needs.

Care plans were reviewed regularly with input from healthcare professionals and relatives.

The registered manager assessed and monitored the quality of care provided by involving people, relatives and professionals. Each person and every relative told us they were regularly asked for feedback and were encouraged to voice their opinions about the quality of care provided.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. These safeguards protect the rights of people using services by ensuring that if there are any restrictions to their freedom and liberty, these have been authorised by the local authority as being required to protect the person from harm. We observed people’s freedoms were not unlawfully restricted and staff were knowledgeable about when a DoLS application should be made.

During the inspection visit the provider responded positively and took action quickly when we shared our concerns.

We found five breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of this report.

30 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We looked at the care records of three people who used the service. Each person had an assessment of their needs and a care plan, including risk assessments.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. The provider had procedures in place to safeguard people who used the service and to respond to any allegation of abuse.

During our visit we inspected the storage and records of medicines held in the home. We saw that all medicines were stored appropriately.

Staff had received basic training in moving and handling, safeguarding, food safety, use of mediation, safe handling of medicines, fire awareness and safety and first aid.

People's personal records including medical records were accurate and fit for purpose. All records we looked at provided up to date information and guidance on how best to meet people's care needs.

24 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We were informed that there were thirty nine people living at Oaklands Care home

We looked around the building which was clean. The manager informed us that they were part way through a refurbishment programme which included the redecoration of all the bedrooms and replacing all the bedroom curtains, bedspreads and all the carpets as they were beginning to smell of unpleasant odours. The rooms were personalised with photographs, TV's and pictures. There was a lift and chair lift so people could access the first floor.

During our visit we spoke with three people who used the service and four members of staff (including the registered manager). We also spoke with visitors. We spent time observing how staff interacted and supported people. We saw staff treating people in a sensitive, respectful and professional manner. The home had four communal areas and we saw there was staff available throughout the time we were at the home.

All the people we spoke seemed happy living at Oaklands Care Home. We spoke with one visitor who told us that the family were happy with the home and that their relative had settled in well. They found the staff very good, friendly and helpful. People told us that the staff were wonderful.