You are here

Archived: Oxenden House Care Home Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 16 March 2015

We carried out this inspection on 22 October 2014, it was unannounced.

Oxenden House is a detached property set in its own grounds. It is a privately owned service and the registered providers and their family live on the premises. The service provides personal care, accommodation and support for up to five adults who have a learning disability. At the time of the inspection three people lived at the service.

There was 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. Both registered providers and the assistant manager were present for all or part of the inspection visit.

People living at the service had been appropriately assessed regarding their mental capacity to make certain decisions. Processes were in place to arrange ‘best interest’ meetings involving people’s next of kin, and health and social care professionals for making specific decisions about their care and welfare.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The manager and staff showed that they understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager told us that currently none of the people had their liberty restricted.

Staff had been trained in how to protect people from harm and abuse. Discussions with staff confirmed that they knew the action to take in the event of any suspicion of abuse. Staff understood the whistle blowing policy. Staff were confident they could raise any concerns with the registered manager or outside agencies if this was needed.

People and their relatives were involved in care planning, and staff supported them in making arrangements to meet their health needs. Care plans were amended to show any changes, and care plans were routinely reviewed and audited to check that they were up to date. Staff spoke with people in a caring way and supported people to do what they wanted to do. People were supported in having a well-balanced diet and menus offered variety and choice.

Staff knew about people’s individual lifestyles, and supported them in retaining their independence. People were given individual support to carry out their hobbies and interests, such as swimming, golf, football, sailing and horse riding. People said that the staff were kind and caring and treated them with dignity and respect.

Medicines were managed and administered safely. People received their medicines on time.

There were clear risk assessments in place for the environment, and for each individual person who received care. Assessments identified people’s specific needs, and showed how risks could be minimised. There were systems in place to review accidents and incidents and make any relevant improvements as a result.

Staff files contained the required recruitment information. Staff worked alongside other staff until they had been assessed as being able to work on their own. There were effective systems in place for on-going staff training; and for staff supervision and support.

There were systems in place to obtain people’s views. These included formal and informal meetings, events, questionnaires and daily contact with the registered manager and staff.

Aspects of the service was monitored. The premises and equipment were well maintained. The manager carried out checks and analysis to identify where improvements were needed and kept clear records of this. Meetings held regularly gave people the opportunity to comment on the quality of the service. People were listened to and their views were taken into account in the way the service was run.

Inspection areas



Updated 16 March 2015

The service was safe.

People felt safe living in the service, and that staff cared for them well.

People were protected from abuse. Safe recruitment procedures were followed and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs.

Risks to people’s safety and welfare were assessed. Medicines were managed safely. The premises were maintained and equipment was checked and serviced regularly.



Updated 16 March 2015

The service was effective.

The staff understood their individual needs. Staff were suitably trained.

The menus offered variety and choice and provided people with a well-balanced diet.

People’s health needs were met. Referrals were made to health professionals when needed. Staff were guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure any decisions were made in the person’s best interests.



Updated 16 March 2015

The service was caring.

Staff were supportive, patient and caring. The atmosphere in the home was welcoming.

Wherever possible, people were involved in making decisions about their care and staff took account of their individual needs.

People were treated with dignity and respect.



Updated 16 March 2015

The service was responsive.

People and their relatives were involved in their care planning. Changes in care were discussed with people so they were involved.

People were supported to maintain their own interests and hobbies. Visitors were always made welcome.

People were given information on how to make a complaint in a format that met their communication needs.



Updated 16 March 2015

The service was well-led.

People and their relatives spoke very highly of the staff and the registered manager. Staff were fully aware of the home’s ethos for caring for people as individuals, and the vision for on-going improvements.

There were auditing systems in place to identify any shortfalls or areas for development, and action was taken to deal with these. People’s views were sought and acted on. People were confident that any concerns would be properly investigated and addressed.

People and their relatives felt able to approach the manager and there was open communication within the staff team.