We carried out a review of the data available to us about Oaklodge Care 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 Oaklodge Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Enhanced cleaning and disinfection of all areas of the service took place to reduce the risk of cross contamination. Schedules were in place to support cleaning of high touch areas such as door handles and hand rails.
There was plenty of personal protective equipment (PPE) including masks, gloves, aprons and hand sanitiser available. PPE stations were located around the corridors and nearby all of the rooms where people were isolating. Disposal bins for used PPE were kept in people’s rooms to reduce the risk of cross contamination.
A regular programme of testing for COVID-19 was in place for staff and people who lived in the service. The service were preparing to offer testing to relatives in the near future as part of the government roll out of this service.
Preparation of a visiting pod in the garden and the supporting processes were underway to facilitate people being able to see their loved ones again when it was safe to do so.
Changes had been recently made to support staff take staggered breaks and change into and out of their uniforms in an area which was cleaned after each use. This reduced the risk of infection spread between staff members.
The manager undertook daily walk arounds. This included reviewing and updating the infection prevention and control measures and practices in place throughout the service.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
We found the following examples of good practice.
¿ Safe arrangements were in place for people to receive visits from health professionals which included a temperature check, questionnaire and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) such as masks and hand sanitiser. Window visits took place regularly for people to see their loved ones. A new cabin had been purchased so visits could start to take place in the garden when safe to do so.
¿ When people were admitted to the service or returned from hospital, government guidance was followed to support them self-isolate for the required period of time. They were also required to have a negative test result prior to admission. This reduced the risk of infection spread if anyone was carrying the Covid-19 virus.
¿ There was a regular programme of Covid-19 testing in place for staff and people living in the service. This meant swift action could be taken if anyone received a positive test result.
¿ There were sufficient stocks of PPE including masks, gloves, aprons and hand sanitiser. This helped reduce the risk of cross infection. Staff were seen to be wearing PPE appropriately during the visit.
¿ Quality assurance audits took place of infection prevention and control processes. The manager had recently joined the service and planned to add further checks into the audit process. They also planned to make improvements to some other processes such as individual risk assessments around Covid-19 for people and staff.
¿ None of the staff working in the service worked in any other care setting. Since the new manager arrived in September they had only required an agency member of staff to cover one shift. The agency worker was Covid-19 tested. These measures reduced the risk of infection spread within the service.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Oaklodge provides accommodation and care for up to 36 older people, including people with physical frailty and some who are living with dementia. Respite care is also part of the service provided at Oaklodge. There was lift and stairway access to all three floors in the home.
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 on-going 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.
The service met all relevant fundamental standards related to staff recruitment, training and the care people received. They received the timely care they needed. However a partial fault in the fire alarm system had been detected during routine maintenance and repairs were on-going when we inspected. Until the completion of repairs additional precautionary measures had been taken to protect people from the risk of fire so they remained consistently safe. We subsequently received information after our inspection confirming that the fire alarm fault had been professionally rectified following the installation of a new system.
People’s care was regularly reviewed with them so they received the timely care they needed. People were supported 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 practice.
Staff were friendly, kind and compassionate. They responded to people in a timely way whenever they needed assistance. Staff had insight into people’s capabilities and aspirations. They respected people's diverse individual preferences for the way they liked to receive their care and participate in activities they enjoyed.
People’s healthcare needs met. They had access to community based healthcare professionals, such as GP’s and nurses, and had regular check-ups. They received timely medical attention when needed. Medicines were safely managed.
People were supported to have a balanced diet and they had enough to eat and drink. They said the meals were enjoyable with plenty of choices to suit their tastes.
The provider and registered manager led staff by example and enabled the staff team to deliver individualised care that consistently achieved good outcomes for all people using the service. There were arrangements in place for the service to make sure that action was taken and lessons learned when things went wrong so that the quality of care across the service was improved.
This inspection took place on the 1 and 7 December 2015 and was unannounced. The service is registered to provide personal care to 36 older people some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 30 people living there.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.
Systems were in place to ensure people were protected from abuse; staff had received training and were aware of their responsibilities in raising any concerns about people’s welfare. There were formal systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
The provider had robust recruitment systems in place; which included appropriate checks on the suitability of new staff to work in the home. Staff received a thorough induction training to ensure they had the skills to fulfil their roles and responsibilities. There were enough suitably skilled staff available to meet people’s needs.
People’s care was planned to ensure they received the individual support that they required to maintain their health, safety, independence, mobility and nutrition. People received support that maintained their privacy and dignity and systems were in place to ensure people received their medicines as and when they required them. People had opportunities to participate in the organised activities that were taking place in the home and were able to be involved in making decisions about their care.
There was a stable management team and there were effective systems in place to assess the quality of service provided. Records were maintained in good order and demonstrated that people received the care that they needed.
People told us they were well cared for at Oaklodge and that the staff knew the care they needed and how they wished to be supported. One person said 'I am happy living here and I am well looked after'. Another person told us 'the staff are kind and I feel safe living here'.
People told us they had enough to eat and drink. One person said 'I like the food here and if there is something I don't like the staff will always get me something else'.
People told us they were comfortable living at Oaklodge. One person said 'I am comfortable living here, I like my bedroom and my bed is comfortable'.
People told us the staff were kind and patient. One person said 'The staff are very good here, they treat me very well'.
People also told us they enjoyed the activities in which they participated, that they could choose what to eat and that the food was good.
They told us that they felt they were well looked after at Oak Lodge and they thought that the staff knew how they needed and wished to be supported. One person told us they were kept up to date about their care and treatment options. Another person commented 'the staff are a good crowd, they look after us well'.
People told us that the staff were nice to them, that they felt safe and that they knew how to raise any concerns should they need to do so. They told us they were happy with the quality of the service provided at Oak Lodge.
During the course of this review we found that people were not always monitored to ensure their nutritional well-being and that when they were at increased risk of developing complications such as pressure ulcers, they had not been referred to all of the right specialists. We found that the management systems had failed to identify that people's needs were not always being met.
People told us that they felt they were well looked after at Oak Lodge and they thought that the staff knew how they needed and wished to be supported.
They told us that the staff were nice to them, that they felt safe and that they knew how to raise any concerns should they need to do so.