Oxenford House

We found the following examples of good practice.

Robust entrance procedures were in place which included a health check to ensure those entering the home were symptom free and in good health.

Additional activities had been introduced to promote people's well-being during the pandemic.

The home was spotlessly clean and a rigorous cleaning schedule was in place and followed by a dedicated domestic team.

Staff had been well trained and followed robust PPE [personal protective equipment] protocols.

Due to the layout and size of the building, social distancing was in place and followed. Staff had taken steps that supported people with social distancing wherever possible.

The management were aware of zoning guidelines but did not need to implement it as no people were Covid-19 confirmed or suspected in this location.

The provider ensured there was a sufficient stock of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the vetted supplier ensured it complied with the quality standards. Staff had infection control training and understood the correct donning and doffing procedure.

People were supported by a stable and committed team of staff whom they knew well. This helped people to recognize the individual staff with the need to wear face masks. Staff were well supported and praised the management team, comments included; "Management and the team have been very supportive. We are like a family."

The provider considered risks and impact of the inspection on the individual staff members, this included around their health conditions as well as their caring responsibilities.

Additional cleaning schedules had been introduced to reflect additional tasks such as cleaning of frequently touched surfaces. Regular audits took place which led to improvements and safety. For example, revised cleaning schedules and easy wipe furniture had been purchased.

Regular testing for Covid-19 was conducted for both people living at the service and the staff. There was a comprehensive contingency plan of what to do in case of an outbreak.

The provider ensured people's relatives were able to stay in touch with people. For example, by using technology and through safe, face to face visits in an adapted shielded room. Visiting under the current guidelines had also been introduced.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Oxenford House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. It is a member of the Abbeyfield Society and is a purpose built care home registered to provide care and accommodation to up to 25 older people. On the day of our inspection, 21 people were living at the service.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good overall.

Why the service is rated Good:

The service continued to provide support in an extremely caring way. Staff supported people with exceptional kindness and compassion and went the extra mile to provide support at a personal level. Staff knew people very well and many referred to them as family. Staff respected people as individuals and treated them with dignity whilst providing a high level of emotional support. People, and their relatives, were fully involved in decisions about their care needs and the support they required to meet those individual needs

.

The service was led by a registered manager who promoted a service that put people at the forefront of all the service did. There was a positive culture at the service that valued people, relatives and staff and promoted a caring ethos that put people at the forefront of everything they did.

People remained safe living in the home. There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and staff had time to spend with people. Risk assessments were carried out and promoted positive risk taking, which enable people to live their lives as they chose. People received their medicines safely.

People continued to receive effective care from staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them and meet their needs. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the procedures in the service supported this practice. People were supported to access health professionals when needed and staff worked closely with people's GPs to ensure their health and well-being was monitored.

People had access to information about their care and staff supported people in their preferred method of communication.

The service continued to be responsive to people's needs and ensured people were supported in a personalised way. People's changing needs were responded to promptly. People had access to a variety of activities that met their individual needs.

The registered manager monitored the quality of the service and looked for continuous improvement. There was a clear vision to deliver high-quality care and support and promote a positive culture that was person-centred, open, inclusive and empowering which achieved good outcomes for people.

On the day of our visit we spoke with eleven people who used the service and two relatives. One person told us 'It's a really nice place to live'.

Staff had detailed knowledge about the people who lived at the home and they talked about them with respect. Care workers were friendly, sociable and spent time chatting with people. People told us that they felt Oxenford House was a safe place to live. Staff at Oxenford House had recently won an award from Age UK for demonstrating exceptional qualities of dignity in care for older people.

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan which was person centred and regularly reviewed. There was a choice of suitable and nutritious food and drink. There were three choices of main meals and two puddings available on a daily basis. Drinks and snacks were also available in between meals.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because there were appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

The manager and senior care workers monitored the quality of the service. Monthly quality checks were conducted which looked at all areas of the home, including people's care, care plans and kitchen arrangements.

We also observed staff supporting people, treating people with respect and dignity and attending to people promptly. We also looked at records and spoke with staff who supported people living at the home. We spoke with four members of staff during our visit. Staff were seen to enjoy what they were doing and people being cared for were happy and relaxed. The atmosphere in the home was calm and ordered. We also observed a communal area and saw that staff were frequently in and out asking people if they were ok or wanted a drink.

We saw that medicines were kept safely and that appropriate arrangements were in place in relation to the recording and administering of medicines.

The home had enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the people. One person told us 'we get well looked after'. Another person said 'I like all the staff.'

One relative commented that 'the standard of care at Oxenford House is most impressive especially to one whose previous knowledge of residential care was gleaned from adverse reports in the media'