We carried out a review of the data available to us about Oasis House 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 Oasis House, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Visitors were met upon entry by a staff member and were required to follow current guidance for reducing risks of COVID-19. The process for visitors to follow in order to reduce the risks of COVID-19 entering the home were very comprehensive. This included areas such as having their temperature taken, sanitising their hands and completing a COVID-19 risk assessment form. Each visitor then had to be approved by the most senior staff member on duty before admission to the home was enabled.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Oasis House provides care and support for up to 30 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. There were 30 people living at the service when we visited.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People at this service were well cared for by dedicated staff. People benefited from good personal care. People using the service were relaxed with staff and the way staff interacted with people had a positive effect on their well-being. People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion and their privacy, dignity and independence were promoted. One person said, “The staff always ask me what support I need before doing anything.”
People’s feedback was consistently positive about the care, support and staff. People particularly liked the service because of the caring staff. One visitor said, “I don’t know how staff do it, and they do, even with a smile. [Family member] is always kept nice and clean, it’s very upsetting when your partner has deteriorated in health but I’m so grateful to the [registered] manager and staff for the support my [family member] gets in here, I have nothing but praise.”
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Systems and process in place at the service kept people safe in all areas of their care including the
administration of medicines.
There were enough staff on each shift to support people and robust recruitment checks were carried out before staff started working at the service. Staff received induction, training and supervision to ensure that they had the right skills and abilities to support people.
People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet.
Systems were in place to monitor the service, which ensured that people's risks were mitigated, and lessons were learnt when things went wrong. There was an open culture within the service, where people and staff could approach the registered manager who acted on concerns raised to make improvements to people's care.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 16 December 2016).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Oasis House provides care and support for up to 30 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. There were 30 people living at the service when we visited.
Prior to this inspection we had received concerns in relation to the standard of cleanliness in some areas of the premises. We therefore needed to ensure that people were living in a clean and hygienic environment and were receiving safe care in line with the fundamental standards.
The service did not have a registered manager in place, but a manager was in post. They were going through the registration process with the Care Quality Commission (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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People felt safe. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise the signs and symptoms of abuse and they knew how to report any concerns. People had risk assessments and management plans in place. These had been developed with people using the service and the multi-disciplinary team of health care professionals and care staff working at the service.
There were sufficient staff with the appropriate skill mix available to support people with their needs. Effective recruitment procedures were in place to ensure suitable staff were employed. Staff did not start working at the service until all of the necessary pre-employment checks had been carried out.
Systems were in place to ensure that people’s medicines were managed safely. There were arrangements in place for ensuring that the premises were clean and hygienic.
Staff received appropriate training, supervision and support to enable them to carry out their roles and responsibilities effectively.
People were supported to make decisions about their care and support. Their consent to be supported was sought in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 legislation. Any restrictions placed on people’s liberty were legally authorised using the least restrictive means. The manager and staff team were knowledgeable about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
People were able to make choices about the food and drink they had and to maintain a healthy and balanced diet. Staff supported people to attend health care appointments; and they had access to a variety of health care professionals including the dentist, optician, chiropodist, dietician and the speech and language therapist.
People and their relatives including health care professionals commented positively about the standard of the care provided. Staff provided care and support in a meaningful manner; and knew about people’s preferences and personal histories.
People and their relatives’ views were listened to and they were actively encouraged to be involved in their care and support. Staff treated people with kindness and compassion; and their rights to privacy and dignity were fully respected.
Visitors to the service were welcomed and there were no restrictions on visiting times.
People’s needs were assessed before coming to live at the service and the care plans reflected how their needs were to be met.
There was a complaints procedure, which people their relatives and staff were aware of. Complaints raised with the service were responded to and investigated in line with the complaints procedure.
The ethos of the service promoted an open and inclusive culture where people’s views mattered. A variety of quality monitoring audits were carried out, which were used to drive continuous improvement.
Oasis House provides care and support for up to 30 older people who are physically and mentally frail. There were 30 people living at the service when we visited.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 29 January 2015.
The home has a registered manager. ‘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.’
People were looked after by staff who were aware of how to respond to allegations or incidents of abuse. The staffing numbers at the service were adequate to meet people’s assessed needs. The service had a recruitment process to ensure that suitable staff were employed to look after people safely. There were suitable arrangements for the storage and management of medicines.
Staff received appropriate support and training to perform their roles and responsibilities. They were provided with on-going training to update their skills and knowledge. People’s consent to care and treatment was sought in line with current legislation. Where people’s liberty was deprived best interest assessments had taken place. People were provided with a balanced diet and adequate amount of food and drinks of their choice. If required people had access to health care services.
People were looked after by staff who were caring, compassionate and promoted their privacy and dignity. Their needs were assessed and regularly reviewed to ensure that the care they received was relevant to their needs. There was a complaints process which people were made aware of.
The service promoted a culture that was open and transparent. Quality assurance systems were in place and these were used to obtain feedback, monitor performance and manage risks.
We observed safe medication processes in the home which ensured the people who use the service received the correct medication at the correct time.
This home provided a clean and safe environment for the people who lived there. There was a relaxed and homely atmosphere in the home, and people were supported to have their own personal belongings around them. One person said, "It is lovely here I have nothing to worry about." People were at ease in the company of the staff that cared for them and there were sufficient staff on duty to meet their care needs.
The home had a robust complaints procedure which would ensure a complaint was logged, investigated and responded to correctly and in a timely fashion.
People looked clean and well cared for, and where people needed support or assistance with personal care this was done in the privacy of their room, or discretely if not requiring privacy, to protect their dignity. The food and drink choices were suitable and very homely. One person told us 'Food's good, a good variety'.
People had access to a wealth of information relating to the home which was displayed on notice boards in the communal areas of the home. This included information about people's rights and how to make a complaint, how to access advocacy support services, information about and from the Alzheimer's Society and safeguarding contact information. There were a number of different activities arranged and these are being expanded to ensure everyone can find something suitable.
People told us, and we heard, staff speak in a kind, friendly and respectful manner. We heard staff explain to people what they were going to do before providing care.
We were told that people were offered a choice of meals, that there was plenty of food and that it was of a satisfactory standard.
People living at the home made positive comments about the staff who care for them. They told us staff were kind and understood their needs. They said that they trusted the staff and manager and felt that any concerns they raised would be addressed.