Archived: Oxenden House Care Home

Updated 16 March 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 12 November 2014. The provider was given three hours’ notice as this was a small service for younger adults with learning disabilities who were often out during the day; we needed to be sure that someone would be there. The inspection team consisted of one inspector, as this was more appropriate for a small service.

We spoke with the three people who lived at the service and they showed us their rooms and the rest of the service. We looked at personal care records and support plans for two people. We looked at three medicine records; two activity records; and one staff recruitment record. We observed staff carrying out their duties, such as staff supporting people on their return home following their planned activities. Before the visit we examined previous inspection reports and notifications we had received. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law.

This service was a family run business and was staffed by both registered providers, and an assistant manager, who is a relative. As the partners and their family lived at the premises they were able to update each other and any other staff with any changes in each person’s care and support needs. In addition to the registered providers and the assistant manager there was one part time person employed who carried out cleaning duties.

Before the inspection, the registered provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We received positive feedback via e-mail from two social services case managers who had arranged reviews of people who lived at the service.

We last inspected the service on 11 October 2013, when no concerns were identified.

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.