We carried out a review of the data available to us about Oaklands Court Nursing 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 Oaklands Court Nursing Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The home was clean and well maintained. There was a regular cleaning programme throughout the day. There was a well-resourced cleaning team who followed and completed cleaning schedules. They were knowledgeable regarding current Covid-19 cleaning guidelines. Care and all other staff were also completing additional cleaning. For example, the cleaning of high touch areas after use that included door handles and mobile phones.
The home was currently closed to all visitors due to a recent Covid-19 outbreak. However, visiting had continued for those people at the end of their life, with individual risk assessments to safeguard people and visitors. There was a visiting policy to provide relevant guidelines to follow once the home re-opens to visitors in line with government guidelines, and information on visiting was displayed on the home’s website. The conservatory had been designated as a visiting room; this provided a direct outside entrance that supported safe visiting arrangements. Staff had supported people to maintain contact with their loved ones with the use of video calls and telephones.
There were systems in place to ensure that people who had tested positive for Covid-19 were isolated in their own rooms all of which had en-suite facilities. People who were not isolating and chose to visit the dining areas or communal areas were supported by staff to maintain social distancing. For example, chairs and tables had been re-arranged to allow more space between people.
An adequate supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) was available and staff had received specific Covid-19 training, this included guidance for staff on how to put on and take off PPE safely. Staff were seen to be following correct IPC practices. Hand sanitisers were readily available throughout the home along with stocks of PPE.
Regular testing for people and staff was taking place, in accordance with government guidelines. The providers were keen to support staff through this difficult time and ensured they were safe and felt appreciated. For example, pregnant staff had been furloughed on full pay and staff had been treated to take-aways.
Oaklands Court Nursing Home is a care home providing nursing and personal care to up to 43 people aged 65 and over. At the time of the inspection, there were 40 people living at the service. Some people were living with dementia. Eight people were cared for in bed.
People’s experience of using this service:
People had choice over their care and support and their choice, dignity and privacy was respected by staff. People told us staff were kind and caring and treated them well. Comments included, “The staff are very friendly” and “I love it here, the staff are nice.”
People had access to a wide range of different activities throughout the week both inside and outside of the service. People told us that they took part in these and that they were enjoyable. Activities included people who received their care and treatment in bed. The service had a dedicated group of volunteers who regularly visited people living in the home who did not have family or other visitors.
People received exceptional care, support and treatment when they reached the end of their lives. People had been involved in planning and discussions about their wishes and preferences in relation to their end of life care. Staff had a good understanding of providing good quality care to people who were at the end of their lives.
People felt safe living at Oaklands Court. Staff had the knowledge and training to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. The provider’s safeguarding policy required updating to ensure it gave staff clear information in line with the local authorities’ policies and procedures. This is an area for improvement.
Fire safety had not always been effectively managed. We found hoists charging in corridors within the service which restricted the width of the corridors. Corridors are considered protected areas and should not be used for storage or charging electrical items. Staff had not undertaken training to use evacuation equipment. We made a recommendation about this.
Risks to people were identified, and when incidents and accidents occurred they were investigated appropriately and learnt from. However, improvements recommended by health and social care professionals following a safeguarding investigation had not been fully implemented. This is an area for improvement.
When people needed medical attention, this was quickly identified, and appropriate action was taken. For example, if people were losing weight referrals were made to dieticians, or if people fell regularly they were referred to a fall’s clinic. Nursing staff worked closely with the GP who visited the service regularly.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection:
The service was rated Good at the last inspection on 16 and 17 June 2016 (the report was published on 07 September 2016).
Why we inspected:
This inspection was a scheduled inspection based on previous rating.
Follow up:
We will visit the service again in the future to check if they are changes to the quality of the service.
There was an acting manager in post who had applied for registration with the CQC. 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.
Medicines to be taken as required were not personalised to the individual persons need. The provider had ensured that medicines were stored safely at all times. Medicine administration records were kept up to date by staff. Only staff that were trained to administer medicines did so.
People were protected against abuse and harm. Staff were trained to identify the types of abuse and knew who to report to if they had any concerns. Staff were aware of the policies and procedures regarding abuse.
The service appeared clean and tidy and there were cleaning charts in place to ensure that all areas were cleaned. The provider had ensured that the premises was safe for use and had up to date certificates of safety.
There was sufficient staff to provide care to people throughout the day and night. When staff were recruited they were subject to checks to ensure they were safe to work in the care sector.
People’s needs had been assessed and detailed care plans developed. Care plans contained appropriate risk assessments that specific to the person’s need.
The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were adhered to. People were being assessed appropriately and best interests meetings took place to identify the least restrictive methods of keeping people safe. Staff had training on MCA and had good knowledge.
The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Appropriate applications to restrict people’s freedom had been submitted and the least restrictive options were considered as per the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
People were supported to have a healthy and nutritious diet. People could choose what they wanted to eat from a set menu or ask for an alternative meal. The provider had ensured that people who required additional support with eating were appropriately assessed.
People were being referred to health professionals in a timely manner. When staff identified that person had a change in need they would inform a nurse who would make appropriate referrals to other health professionals if required. Staff received training that gave them the skills and knowledge required to support people.
People and their relatives told us they were involved in the planning of their care. Care plans were being reviewed on a monthly basis by staff. The provider had insured that people and relatives had ways of communicating their wishes before reviews.
People told us they were very happy with the care staff and the support they provided. Relatives told us they were happy with the service their loved ones received. Staff communicated with people in ways that were understood when giving support. Staff and the manager had got to know people well. Staff could build positive relationships with people to fully understand their needs.
Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity at all the times. The provider had ensured that people’s personal information was stored securely and access only given to those that needed it. People had freedom of choice at the service. People could decorate their rooms to their own tastes and choose if they wished to participate in any activity. Staff respected people’s decisions.
People at the service had access to a wide range of activities that were designed for their individual needs. People told us they were very happy with the amount of activities on offer at the service.
The provider had ensured that there were effective processes in place to fully investigate any complaints. Outcomes of the investigations were communicated to relevant people.
The registered manager was approachable and supportive and took an active role in the day to day running of the service. Staff were able to discuss concerns with them at any time and know they would be addressed appropriately. The registered manager was open, transparent and responded positively to any concerns or suggestions made about the service. The provider carried out surveys to identify shortfalls with the service.
The people we spoke with told us they were happy with the care they received. They also told us they were happy living in Oaklands Court. One person who used the service told us 'I am looked after very well'. Another person we spoke with told us 'I like it here, we do so many different activities'.
Staff we spoke with were happy in the roles and felt fully supported by their manager.One member of staff told us 'this is a great place to work and it always has a friendly atmosphere'.
We looked at care plans and staff records and observed levels of staff. We saw the service had enough experienced and skilled staff to meet the people's needs.
During our visit we talked to staff, relatives and five residents who said the home had supported people to be independent wherever possible. Residents told us they had felt involved about how they wished to have care and support delivered and were given clear information on a daily basis regarding their care and treatment. They told us their preferences were always accommodated and they described a relationship of trust with staff and felt they were being listened to. One person said 'this is such a nice home and everyone works hard to look after the residents and also the relatives'.
A relative that we spoke with stated that staff were gentle and made every effort to involve the family with their relative's care. Everyone that we spoke to said that they found staff kind, caring and very respectful. Residents told us that they felt safe living at the home and that they would speak to any member of staff if they had any concerns or complaints. They said that if they had reason to speak to someone they had confidence that their concerns would be addressed immediately.