You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 5 January 2018

During a routine inspection

Oakley Care Home in Heysham supports up to three people with mental health needs. It is a mid terraced house with comfortable communal areas and single bedroom accommodation. The home is located close to transport, local facilities and the beach. At the time of our inspection visit there were two people who lived at the home.

There was a registered manager in place who was also the owner. 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.

At the last inspection in October 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Oakley Care Home operated as a family home and the two people who lived there at the time of the inspection visit had done so for a number of years as part of the family unit. One person who lived at the home said, “[Owner] is like a mum to us, especially to me. I feel so much better since coming here.”

Suitable arrangements were in place to protect people from abuse and unsafe care. People at Oakley Care Home and a relative we spoke with told us they felt safe and people were cared for.

The registered provider/owner with part time support from a family member, provided care and guidance for the people who lived at Oakley. No staff had been recruited since the last inspection

We looked around the premises and found it had been maintained, was clean and hygienic and a safe place for people to live. We found equipment had been serviced and maintained as required.

Medicines were managed in line with people’s needs. People had signed to say they would self-medicate with support when required from the provider/owner.

We observed during the inspection visit friendly interactions between the owner and people who lived at the home. We saw the owner was able to communicate well with people they supported and cared for.

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.

People who lived at Oakley Care Home said meals were of a good standard. They said alternatives were available if they did not like what was being made by the owner. One person commented, “[Owner] is a very good cook.”

We found people had access to healthcare professionals and records were kept of outcomes of visits and what action was taken to meet their healthcare needs.

The service had information with regards to support from an external advocate should this be required by them.

The service had a complaints procedure which was made available to people on their admission to the home and their relatives. The people we spoke with told us they were happy with the service and had no complaints.

The owner was familiar with what support and care people who lived at the home required. People were supported to lead full and varied lives and were supported to form relationships within the local community. One person who lived at the home said, “I enjoy going out to visit [friend]. [Owner] does worry but I am alright and tell her as to where I am going.”

There was no formal internal quality assurance in place but informal checks were made routinely. Everyone talked together daily to discuss any plans or changes and events they wished to attend. Decisions were made as a family unit. One of the people who lived at the home said, “We choose what we want to do. I like the gym and keeping fit so [owner] encourages me.”

Inspection carried out on 27 October 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 27 October 2015 and was announced. We gave the provider 24 hours notice to ensure people would be available.

At the last inspection on 19 June 2014 the service was meeting the requirements of the regulations that were inspected at that time.

Oakley Care Home in Heysham supports up to three people with mental health needs. It is a mid terraced house with comfortable communal areas and single bedroom accommodation. The home is located close to transport, local facilities and the beach. At the time of our inspection visit there were two people who lived at the home.

A registered manager was in place who was also the provider. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

This service was operated as a family home and both people who lived there had done so for many years as part of the family unit. One person who lived at the home said, “It is my home and family.”

The registered provider with part time support from a family member provided care and guidance for both people who lived at the home. The service did not employ full time staff. Both people who lived at the home were independent and could attend to their own care needs with minimum support from the provider.

Suitable arrangements were in place to protect people from abuse and unsafe care. Both people told us they felt safe.

We looked at the care records for both people. There was information in place about the support needs for each person and how these were being met. Both persons were having their healthcare needs met. They told us they had access to their doctor’s and dentist when they needed to see them.

The home was well maintained and clean and hygienic when we visited. The people we spoke with said they were happy with the standard of accommodation provided.

Medicines were administered as prescribed and at the times required. People at the service administered their own medication. The provider gave guidance and prompting support when required.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People who lived at the home had freedom of movement around the building. They were involved in decision making about their lifestyle, meals and the running of the home. We saw no restrictions on people’s liberty during our visit.

People had a choice of meals, snacks and drinks, which they told us they enjoyed. There was flexibility in what people might want to eat. People prepared their own snacks and breakfast and enjoyed main meals with the provider.

The provider and their relative were familiar with what support and care people needed. People were supported to lead full and varied lives and the provider supported them to engage in a wide variety of activities. For example, going out into the community independently and engaging with family. One person who lived at the home said, “I went out to meet my friend and have a coffee we do it regularly.”

There was no formal internal quality assurance in place but informal checks were made routinely. Everyone talked together daily to discuss any plans or changes. Decisions were made as a family group.

Inspection carried out on 19 June 2014

During a routine inspection

This is a small home and care is provided by the owner as part of an extended family environment. No staff were employed as only two people live at Oakley Care Home. On the day of our visit we spoke with the owner/ relatives and people living at the home. They helped answer our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people living at the home and from looking at records. No staff were employed at the home as this is a family run home with two residents. We also had responses from external agencies including social services .This helped us to gain a balanced overview of what people experienced living at Oakley Care Home.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Discussion with the owner confirmed she was aware of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This should enable them to assess peoples' mental capacity should there be concerns about their ability to make decisions for themselves.

From our observations during the day, we found people were treated with respect and dignity by the owner as part of the family. People living at the home told us they felt safe. One person said, �I love it here and feel safe.� A relative we spoke with said, �My son is treated so well and we feel at peace that he is safe and so well cared for.�

Service contracts were in place confirming the building was maintained and a safe place for people to live.

Is the service effective?

People�s health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in developing their plans of care where possible. Relatives views were also sought to ensure people received the right care to meet their needs.

Relatives we spoke with said they were able to see people in private and visiting times were flexible.

Is the service caring?

People living at the home were supported and encouraged to live an independent lifestyle as much as possible by the owner. We saw the owner showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. One person living at the home we spoke with said, �I go out on my own and feel well looked after.�

Is the service responsive?

We saw people received regular health checks with their General Practitioner. The owner might like to note care records we looked at should show more evidence of involvement from external agencies including social services and health professionals. The evidence we saw confirmed people were receiving support from a range of services able to respond to emergency situations.

The two people living at the home were able to live an independent lifestyle with support from the manager. One person was out in the community on her own at the time of the inspection. The owner said, �That was her choice, she is very independent and we encourage that.� Comments from recent reviews from social services told us one person had �significantly benefited from living at Oakley Care Home�.

Is the service well-led?

This is a small family run home, therefore the owner had a range of informal systems in place in to monitor the quality of the care and support being provided. This included regular contact from social workers on a weekly basis, contact with relatives and general conversation with the two people living at the home. This helped to ensure people received a high standard of care at all times. One relative we spoke with said, �We see our relative all the time and speak with J� she is always talking with us.�

Inspection carried out on 27 June 2013

During a routine inspection

There were two people living in Oakley care home when we inspected. They have lived with the owner for several years. The home is run as a normal domestic household and the owner lives along side the service users and they share the same facilities. There is one member of staff who provides support along with the owner.

People told us how much they enjoyed living At Oakley care home. They said it was nice and peaceful and that they were like a family. People said they were encouraged and supported to develop skills and independence. They told us that they knew they had support from the owner and the member of staff when they needed it.

People said that they enjoyed the meals. The owner and member of staff encouraged people to eat healthily as much as possible. However they also encouraged people to choose the foods they liked.

The house was pleasantly furnished and safe. It was warm and comfortable and people had a choice of communal areas to relax in.

The owner told us that she encouraged people to share their views on the home by asking their opinions on a daily basis. She also held informal meetings to seek people�s views.

People told us they were happy and had no complaints or concerns. They added that they knew how to make a complaint if they wanted to, but said they had no reason to.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)