Archived: Oakwood

Oakwood 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. The service is registered to provide accommodation for up to six people who require support and care in their daily lives.

At the last inspection the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained good and achieved a rating of outstanding in the safe domain.

The care service had been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. We saw that people with learning disabilities and autism who used the service were able to live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

During the inspection the home demonstrated that they worked in innovative and creative ways to support people to lead as independent a life as possible. We saw that accidents and incidences were closely monitored and the service changed its environment and staff practice to meet people’s needs safely. This had resulted in very positive outcomes for people and improvements to their daily lives and well-being.

We found examples where staff had supported people with their medicines and worked closely with medical professionals to ensure that people were receiving the correct medication at the correct time that enabled them to live as independently as possible, reduce hospital admissions and be cared for in the environment that they preferred when they were unwell.

Staff were recruited safely and people who lived in the home were involved in the process. A stable, consistent staff team provided quality care to the people who lived in the home. Staffing levels were consistent and were adapted to meet people’s needs.

Staff spoken with and records seen confirmed training had been provided to enable them to support the people with their specific needs. We found staff were knowledgeable about the support needs of people in their care. We observed staff providing support to people throughout our inspection visit. We saw they had positive relationships with the people in their care as they had been supporting them for a long time.

The registered manager and the staff team understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Their competency and understanding was checked on a regular basis. This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions. We saw that people were supported to make their own decisions when possible and their choices were respected.

Care plans were person centred and driven by the people who lived in the home. We saw clear care profiles that gave appropriate information about the most important aspects of their care for that person. They detailed people’s wishes and care needs. They were regularly reviewed and updated as required.

The registered manager and the provider used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included regular audits of the service. The staff team were consistent and long standing. They demonstrated that they were committed to providing the best care possible for the people living in the home.

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

We saw in each person’s care plan staff had completed mental capacity forms for treatment and appropriate deprivation of liberty assessments. We saw staff were knowledgeable about each person’s deprivation of liberty. We saw the provider was able to minimise risks of harm and protect people from abuse.

The way in which staff were recruited was found to be correct and safe. Staff showed evidence of previous experience and continuing professional development within healthcare.

Is the service effective?

We saw staff completed assessments and reviews on the activities the people were involved in. The assessment comprised of reviewing what aspects of the activity that worked, aspects that didn’t work, non-verbal signs the person showed to support this and then an overall review of whether the person enjoyed the activity.

We saw the provider kept up-to-date with best practice and recent evidence to ensure the service was of high quality. The provider had recently introduced ‘One plans’. These were developed to be very detailed yet a quick easy guide for staff. We were told by staff and saw these were effective especially if agency staff were used or if the person was in hospital.

Is the service caring?

We saw staff engaged well with the people who used the service and spoke to them in a respectful, friendly and caring manner. We saw staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and chronic illnesses. We saw the environment as kept very clean and free of clutter. We saw the home had been tastefully decorated and each person’s bedroom was very individualized. When asking the staff about the team of care assistants they told us they “Worked well as a team”, “Caring” and “Always have the peoples best interest at heart”.

Is the service responsive?

We observed staff during meal times and saw they were knowledgeable about those who were high risk of choking and monitored them closely. This was also supported in the people’s care plans. We saw people’s dignity was maintained during meal times. For those who needed their nutrition intake monitored we saw this was documented every meal time. We saw they were seen by the dietician and were weighed regularly.

Is the service well-led?

When asking staff about the provider they all felt that they would deal with any complaints promptly. The staff told us the registered manager was “Very supportive”, a “Good manager” and “Approachable”.

There were policies and systems in place to make sure as much as possible people who used the service and their relatives were involved in the development of the care and support offered to them. Records showed that the service continued to seek advocacy support for those people who had no family involvement to ensure support offered reflected people’s needs and as far as possible wishes.

Care records showed that each person had a communication support plan this provided the staff team with information and guidance as to the most effective way to communicate with each person. The care records also showed and discussions with members of the staff team confirmed that people were supported to access health and social care services when needed.

A tour of the building showed people lived in an environment that was safe, well maintained and met their needs.

Records showed that support plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed and where appropriate updated.

“They provide a good service to my relative and keep me informed about how they are.”

If I needed to speak to someone at the home I would speak to the manager or my relative’s key worker.”

Care plans showed how the needs of the people who used the service were to be met, including any risks to their well-being. We looked at the health and medication records for two people. We found each person had a medication administration support plan and risk assessment.

Records and discussions with the manager and two support workers showed there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided at Oakwood. There was a complaints procedure in place that used pictorial prompts to aid understanding. Records showed the provider had a system in place to encourage the staff team to support people who used the service to raise issues or complaints on their behalf.