Archived: Care Management Group - 49 Oakdale Road

Oakdale Road was previously inspected on 19 January 2016 and was rated ‘Good’, at this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.

Oakdale Road 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.

Oakdale accommodates nine people in one large adapted residential building in the London borough of Lambeth. At the time of the inspection seven people were using the service.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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 continued to be protected against the risk of harm and abuse as staff were aware of the provider’s safeguarding procedure, they knew how to identify, respond and escalate suspected abuse. Risk management plans in place gave staff guidance on how to keep people safe when faced with identified risks. Incidents and accidents were monitored to minimise the risk of repeat incidents and lessons learned were shared with supporting staff.

Systems and processes in place ensured people received their medicines as intended by the prescribing pharmacist. People received support from adequate numbers of suitable staff to keep them safe. People continued to be protected against the risk of cross contamination as staff were aware of the provider’s infection control policy and received on-going training.

People received care and support from staff that underwent training to effectively meet their needs. Staff reflected on their working practices through comprehensive supervisions and annual appraisals.

People were supported to access sufficient amounts of food and drink that met their dietary needs and requirements. People continued to be supported to access healthcare professional services to maintain their health and wellbeing. People’s dependency levels were monitored to ensure support provided enhanced their skills and independence.

The service was aware of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People's consent to care and treatment was sought prior to being delivered. 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’s care plans continued to give staff clear guidance on responding to people’s needs, in a person-centred way. People were encouraged to participate in activities that met their social needs and wishes. The provider’s complaints policy was available to people and the registered manager was aware of the importance of ensuring complaints were dealt with in a timely manner to reach a positive resolution.

People’s relatives and healthcare professionals spoke positively about the registered manager. The registered manager had clear oversight of the service through regular audits. Issues identified in the audits was acted on in a timely manner. People’s views of the service were sought to drive improvements.

The registered manager sought and embraced partnership working with other healthcare professionals and relatives. The registered manager understood and met their regulatory responsibilities.

Oakdale Road is a residential home that provides accommodation and support to up to ten people with learning disabilities and associated conditions in the London Borough of Lambeth. At the time of the inspection there were seven people living at the service.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 supported to have their medicine safely. The service had comprehensive and robust systems in place to ensure medicines were stored, administered and

recording in line with current good practice guidelines. Staff received on-going medicine management training.

People were protected against the risk of abuse. Staff were aware of the correct action to take if they suspected abuse. Staff showed clear knowledge of the provider’s

safeguarding procedure and who to contact to raise their concerns. Risk assessments were in place and reviewed regularly to minimise known risks. Staff had clear

guidelines on how to support people safely and in conjunction with their risk assessments.

People received care and support which was person centred. Care plans were regularly reviewed and updated to reflect people’s changing needs, preferences and

abilities. Care plans were person centred and people were encouraged to be a part of their development where possible.

People’s liberty was not restricted unlawfully. The service followed the correct process in obtaining DoLS (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards) authorisations. The

service followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005. These aim to make sure that people in care homes, hospitals, and supported living are looked after in a way that does not

deprive them of their liberty and ensures that people are supported to make decisions relating to the care they receive. Services should only deprive someone of their

liberty when it is in the best interests of the person and there is no other way to look after them, and it should be done in a safe and lawful manner.

People were supported by staff who had undergone the necessary pre-employment checks, to ensure they were safe to work in the care profession. Staff received

induction training where their competency was assessed and support and guidance given. Staff received comprehensive supervisions with the registered manager,

which enabled them to reflect on the care they provided and plan ways in which to improve the service delivery.

Staff received on-going training in all mandatory areas to enable them to effectively support people in their care. People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to

meet their needs.

People were treated with dignity, respect and kindness at all times. People were encouraged to make decisions about their care and these were respected by staff. Staff

were aware of people’s needs and had maintained relationships with people that gave them the confidence to achieve their goals.

People were treated with dignity, respect and kindness at all times. People were encouraged to make decisions about their care and these were respected by staff. Staff

were aware of people’s needs and had maintained relationships with people that gave them the confidence to achieve their goals.

People were encouraged to maintain a healthy active lifestyle. People were given support to help prepare meals and staff had sought the guidance of a nutritionist with planning their menu. People had access to sufficient food and drink throughout the day.

The service supported people to engage in activities of their choice. Weekly activity plans were in place for people however this was flexible enabling people choices

about what they wanted to do and when they wanted to do it.

The registered manager carried out audits of the service to ensure people were safe and identified areas of change were implemented swiftly by the registered manager. The registered manager actively sought feedback about the service through quality assurance questionnaires and a feedback communication book within the service.

People and staff had developed a positive relationship with the registered manager who was hands on in delivering care and support to people. Staff and people felt the registered manager was kind and respectful and took their ideas and suggestions on board.

People and their relatives were positive about the service. One relative told us with reference to their family member, "My X is very well cared for and they like living there."

We found that people's needs were assessed and care was delivered in line with their individual care plan. There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies.

Reasonable steps had been taken to ensure care was provided in an environment that had been suitably designed and was adequately maintained.

We found that there were effective recruitment and selection procedures in place.

There was evidence that learning from incidents took place and appropriate changes were implemented. We found that decisions about care and treatment were made by the appropriate staff at the appropriate level.

Relatives of two of the people using the service told us they were satisfied with the care and support provided. They told us "The staff do their very best. They are polite and they keep us up to date about things like hospital appointments so that we can go with them. If we have any concerns we talk to the staff and they sort it out." And "They keep my relative well dressed and groomed, they always look good. The staff are nice and our relatives key worker is very good. Friends tell us that they see our relative out and about on the bus with staff and they always look happy and well cared for. This is good to hear."

Another regular visitor from a specialist learning disability background told us "This service is brilliant. There is great consistency of service for people. Every time I visit everyone always seems happy and relaxed and the staff know what's going on. Staff provide good individually tailored care for people and there is a great family atmosphere".

Overall we found that people had been involved as much as possible in planning their care and the running of the home. They had received good support to manage their health conditions and they had opportunities for their personal development and community involvement.

There were a sufficient number of trained staff available to support people and the staff understood how to keep people safe.