You are here

Archived: Oxenden House Care Home Good


Inspection carried out on 12 November 2014

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 11 October 2013

During a routine inspection

There were four people living at Oxenden House at the time of the inspection. We were not able to speak with all the people at the home, as some of them had limited verbal communication, but we observed the care given to people and spoke with one person who used the service. One person told us "I love living here", and "This is my home; I'd never leave". People were involved in their own care, and were encouraged to make their own decisions where possible. We found that the staff were polite and treated the people at the home with dignity and respect. We noted that staff knocked on people's doors and waited for a response before entering.

We reviewed the care plans for all the people living at the home, and found that they were clear and comprehensive, with information relating to the current abilities and goals for each person. We saw evidence of monitoring and regular evaluations of the support that was provided, together with involvement and liaison with relatives and various health professionals, to ensure they were kept informed of changes in people's conditions when necessary. We found that where risks had been identified, measures had been implemented to manage the risk.

We reviewed staff records, and found that recruitment procedures were robust and the provider was able to demonstrate that staff were suitable and qualified for their roles. We saw that people at the home were able to raise issues or concerns at regular house meetings, and changes had been made at the home as a result of these meetings.

We found that improvements had been made in medication storage and care records since previous inspections.

Inspection carried out on 6 November 2012

During a routine inspection

There were five people living at Oxenden House when we did the inspection.

People and their relatives told us that staff had talked to them about the care and support they needed. People were involved in decisions about their care and support and they were encouraged to make as many decisions as possible for themselves. People�s privacy and dignity was respected and promoted.

We saw that people were responsive in the company of staff. Staff listened to people and took their views seriously and answered their questions in a way that they could understand.

People expressed that they felt safe and well looked after. Relatives said they could talk to the staff about any problems or concerns and they felt confident they would be sorted out.

Relative�s comments were, �My relative is very happy at Oxenden. He is part of the family�. �Residents have healthy and nutritious food and they are always doing something. They get plenty exercise, which is very important�. �The Providers always contacts us to let us know what is happening, they always listen to what we have to say�.

People indicated that there were enough activities going on and said that they enjoyed going out in the local area. People went to activities outside the home on a daily basis. Some people went home to their relatives at the weekend.

The staff we spoke to had knowledge and understanding of people's needs and knew people's routines and how they liked to be supported.

Inspection carried out on 16 May 2011

During a routine inspection

People told us staff had talked to them about the care. People and relatives spoken with knew about their care plan. Relatives said that they were kept well informed about their relative when there had been concerns. All those spoken with said that staff at the home treated them with respect and promoted their independence.

We saw people participating in making choices about what they wanted and contributed towards the running of the home. People had the opportunity to take part in all aspects of life within the home as they wished or that their capacity allowed.

One relative talked about the discussions they had with staff about their relatives care needs and the decisions agreed.

People told us they felt safe living at Oxenden House Care Home. The atmosphere was seen to be relaxed and calm. People said they had the opportunity to raise concerns and could make any complaint where they had concerns. They said that communication with management was good.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)