You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 December 2016

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 1November 2016. At the last inspection in September 2015, we found the provider was not meeting all of the requirements of the regulations we reviewed. We asked them to make improvements to maintaining the dignity of people living at the home and notifying CQC of incidents that occurred within the home. The provider had submitted an action plan detailing the improvements they planned to make and at this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was now meeting the regulations.

Oaks Court House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 41 older people, some of whom have dementia. On the day of the inspection there were 23 people living at the home. There was a registered manager in post. 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.

Relatives told us their family members were safe. People appeared comfortable in the presence of staff and staff knew how to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff supported people to manage their risks. There were staff available throughout the home to respond to people when needed. The provider had safe recruitment systems in place which ensured appropriate staff were employed to support people. People received their medicines as prescribed and had access to pain relieving medicines when required.

People were supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge required to meet their needs. Staff received training relevant to their role and were supported by the senior staff and registered manager. People were asked for their consent before care was provided and the registered manager had assessed people’s capacity to make decisions as required by law. People were happy with the food and drink provided and people were supported to access healthcare professionals when required.

People had developed positive relationships with staff and told us staff were friendly and kind. People were involved in making decisions about their care and support. We observed some occasions where staff missed opportunities to engage more with people and encourage or promote their independence. People were supported in a way that upheld their dignity.

People had not always been involved in the planning of their care due to their capacity to make decisions. However, we saw relatives and other professionals had been involved and had been asked to contribute to support and care planning. A programme of activities was available that was relevant to some people’s interests and pastimes, although some people told us they felt the activities offered were not of interest to them.

People and staff told us they felt the home was well managed. The registered manager and staff sought people’s views on the service they received. Staff felt supported by the management of the home and told us they felt their contribution was welcomed, and shared examples of where they ideas had been adopted and improvements made. The registered manager had notified us of events as required by law and felt supported by the provider. There were systems in place to review the quality of care people received and where improvements were identified action was taken to improve the quality of care people received.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 December 2016

The service was safe.

People were protected from harm by staff who knew how to recognise and report signs of possible abuse. People managed their risks with the support of the staff team. There were sufficient number of staff available to support and care for people. People received their medicines as prescribed and systems used to manage medicines were safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 30 December 2016

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge required to meet their needs. Staff received support and feedback from the registered manager and senior staff. People were asked for their consent before care was provided and where relevant, people’s capacity to make decisions had been assessed. People received sufficient amount of food and drink to maintain their health and were supported to access healthcare professionals when required.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 December 2016

The service was caring.

People were cared for by staff who were friendly and kind. People were involved in decisions about the daily care and support. Staff supported people in a dignified way, although some opportunities to engage people in maintaining their independence were missed.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 December 2016

The service was responsive.

People received care and support that was personalised and met their individual needs. Activities were available, which some people enjoyed, however the registered manager recognised more could be done to engage people in activities that interested them. People knew how to raise concerns about the care they received and there was a system in place to manage complaints and identify learning.

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 December 2016

The service was well-led.

People and staff felt the home was well managed. Staff felt able to contribute to the running of the home and felt supported to make suggestions or ideas for improvements to people’s care and support. The registered manager had notified us of events they were required to by law and there were systems in place to monitor the quality of care provided which was used to drive improvements.