You are here

St Anne's Community Services - Oxfield Court Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 2 June 2016

The inspection of Oxfield Court took place on 19 April 2016 and was unannounced. The service had previously been inspected in November 2013 and was found to be in breach of regulations relating to the environment, poor record keeping and staffing. We checked during this inspection whether improvements had been made.

Oxfield Court supports adults with learning disabilities with additional complex health needs. Accommodation is provided in four separate bungalows, each of which has a manager who oversees the provision of care for people. On the day of the inspection there were 22 people living at Oxfield Court. Three of the bungalows were at full occupancy with six people and one had four people with two vacancies.

There was a registered manager present on the day we inspected. 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 safe as staff demonstrated an in-depth understanding of people’s individual needs based on their experience and knowledge gained through care records. Staff knew what constituted a safeguarding concern and were aware of how to report such issues. The service had robust and rigorous risk assessments in place to minimise the likelihood of harm whether through the use of equipment or people’s behaviour. These were regularly reviewed and updated.

Staffing were appropriate on the day we inspected and ensured that people had their needs met in a timely manner. Medicines were administered, recorded and stored safely.

We saw in records and by speaking to staff there was an ongoing supervision and training schedule which supported staff to develop and progress in their own development. Staff were encouraged to challenge and offer new ideas if they could see areas for improvement.

The service was acting in accordance with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 by ensuring that people who lacked capacity to make specific decisions had appropriate assessments in place to support staff to make decisions in their best interests. Where people were not able to assess risk to themselves or did not have the freedom to leave, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were in place.

People were supported with their nutrition and hydration needs, whether by being encouraged to prepare their own food as far as possible or through specific nursing input. We found that people had regular access to external agencies as required and regular meetings and information was shared when needed between such services to maintain people’s optimum care.

Staff were patient, caring and kind and people responded well to attention. There was evidence of a good rapport between staff and people using the service and we saw that people were encouraged to make as many decisions for themselves as possible during the day. The service demonstrated a consistent culture of respecting people’s privacy and promoting their dignity.

People had access to a wide range of activities both within and outside of the service. We saw care records were clear and detailed, emphasising key attributes and information about how best to support someone. Records were easy to navigate and it was evident from staff discussions that they were used regularly as staff knowledge was current.

The service had a complaints policy, although had not received any complaints. However, they had received many compliments and positive feedback.

People and staff were content and enjoyed being at the service. Staff felt supported and encouraged to offer new ideas and develop new ways of working if this resulted in better outcomes for people in the service. The registered manager provided consistent and transparent leadership which was reflected in the approaches between each of the bungalows on site.

Quality assurance measures were effective and sought to drive forward improvement with people at the heart of the service.

Inspection areas



Updated 2 June 2016

The service was safe.

People were safe as staff had a sound understanding of how to identify and report any concerns.

Risk assessments were detailed and based on individual need with clear direction for staff.

Medicines were administered, recorded and stored in line with guidelines and the service had an appropriate level of staffing to meet people’s needs in a timely manner.



Updated 2 June 2016

The service was effective.

Staff were supported with regular supervision and training, and all had received a comprehensive induction.

The service was acting in accordance with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and people’s consent sought wherever possible.

People were supported with their nutritional needs which varied in complexity across the service and had access to health and social care support as required.



Updated 2 June 2016

The service was caring.

Staff were consistently patient, caring and kind and engaged with people while respecting their right for privacy.

We saw excellent examples of dignity being respected and people being encouraged to make as many decisions as possible themselves.



Updated 2 June 2016

The service was responsive.

People were supported to undertake activities of their own choosing and care records were very person-centred and detailed.

The service had not received any complaints but had a clear complaints policy and recorded all compliments it received.



Updated 2 June 2016

The service was well led.

People appeared happy and contented and staff expressed how much they liked working at Oxfield Court as they felt supported and valued.

The service had a pro-active registered manager who constantly sought to improve the service and had systems measuring progress, consistency and quality which showed how this was achieved.