We carried out a review of the data available to us about OSJCT Madley Park House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about OSJCT Madley Park House, you can give feedback on this service.
Madley Park House is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 47 older people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 60 people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People living at Madley Park House were supported to lead purposeful lives, engaging with their families and the local community. Whilst adjustments had been made due to the restrictions of the Covid-19 pandemic, measures had remained in place to ensure meaningful relationships and people's overall health and wellbeing was maintained.
People were safe. Staff knew how to identify and report any concerns. The provider had safe recruitment and selection processes in place which incorporated their values.
Risks to people's safety and well-being were managed through a risk management process. On the day of our inspection, there were sufficient staff deployed to meet people's needs. Medicines were managed safely, and people received their medicines as prescribed.
People and relatives told us staff were caring. Staff did all they could to promote people’s independence and we saw examples of this. People received personalised care, tailored to their individual needs and preferences, and staff supported people and their relatives to be involved with decisions relating to their care. People's privacy and dignity was upheld through the approaches taken by staff as well as in relation to the care environment.
People were supported to meet their nutritional needs and complimented the food at the home. People had a pleasant well-presented dining experience which offered a variety of appetising food choices available at times that suite people’s preferences. Staff supported people to maintain food and fluid intakes, including, through the use of snacks, and making people hot drinks to help them relax and maintain their comfort.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff had a particularly good understanding of when the principles of the Mental Capacity Act should be applied.
The home was well-led by a registered manager who was committed to improving people’s quality of life. The service had a clear management and staffing structure in place and staff worked well as a team. The provider had effective quality assurance systems in place that included the use of technology to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Staff worked well with external social and health care professionals.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good. Published 18 December 2018.
Why we inspected
We undertook this inspection as part of a random selection of services rated Good and Outstanding to test the reliability of our new monitoring approach.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
We found the following examples of good practice.
The provider had installed a wash hand basin in the entrance of the service to ensure essential visitors were able to complete thorough handwashing. All visitors had their temperature taken and completed a lateral flow test for COVID-19.
There was an infection prevention and control lead in the service who completed regular audits to ensure all guidance was being followed. Staff competency related to the wearing of personal protective equipment (PPE) and adherence to infection control procedures were regularly carried out.
The provider ensured an adequate supply of PPE to enable staff to follow current guidance to reduce the risk of infection.
At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
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 safe. There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and staff had time to spend with people. People’s nutritional needs were met and staff supported people to maintain a healthy diet. Where people had specific dietary needs, these were met.
Risk assessments were carried out and promoted positive risk taking, which enabled people to live their lives as they chose. People received their medicines safely. Records relating to risks and medicines were accurate and up to date.
The service provided support in a caring way. Staff supported people with kindness and compassion and went the extra mile to provide support at a personal level. Staff knew people extremely well, respected them as individuals and treated them with dignity whilst providing emotional support. People and their relatives, were fully involved in decisions about their care needs and the support they required to meet those individual needs.
There was a positive culture at the service that valued people, relatives and staff and promoted a caring ethos that put people at the forefront of everything they did.
People received effective care from staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them and meet their needs. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the procedures in the service supported this practice. People were supported to access health professionals when needed and staff worked closely with people's GPs to ensure their health and well-being was monitored.
People had access to information about their care and staff supported people in their preferred method of communication.
The service continued to be responsive to people's needs and ensured people were supported in a personalised way. People's changing needs were responded to promptly. People had access to a variety of activities that met their individual needs.
The registered manager monitored the quality of the service and looked for continuous improvement. There was a clear vision to deliver high-quality care and support and promote a positive culture that was person-centred, open, inclusive and empowering which achieved good outcomes for people.
Madley Park is a care home without nursing on the outskirts of Witney. The home cares for up to sixty older people, who are physically or mentally frail. The home is run by the Orders of St. John Care Homes. On the day of our inspection 55 people were living at the home.
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.
We were greeted warmly by the registered manager and staff at the service who seemed genuinely pleased to see us. The atmosphere was open and friendly.
People benefitted from caring relationships with staff. People were treated with dignity and respect and they were involved in their care. Staff promoted people’s independence. On the day of our inspection there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. The service had safe, robust recruitment processes.
People were safe. Most staff understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding. Staff had received regular training to make sure they stayed up to date with recognising and reporting safety concerns. The service had systems in place to notify the appropriate authorities where concerns were identified.
Where risks to people had been identified risk assessments were in place and action had been taken to reduce the risks. Staff were aware of people’s needs and followed guidance to keep them safe. People received their medicine as prescribed.
Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and applied its principles in their work. The MCA protects the rights of people who may not be able to make particular decisions themselves. The registered manager was knowledgeable about the MCA and how to ensure the rights of people who lacked capacity were protected.
People had enough to eat and drink. People could choose what to eat and drink and their preferences were respected. Where people had specific nutritional needs, staff were aware of, and ensured these needs were met.
People told us they were confident they would be listened to and action would be taken if they raised a concern. We saw complaints were dealt with in a compassionate and timely fashion. The service had systems to assess the quality of the service provided. Learning was identified and action taken to make improvements which improved people’s safety and quality of life. Systems were in place that ensured people were protected against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care.
Staff spoke positively about the support they received from the registered manager. Staff supervision and meetings were scheduled as were annual appraisals. Staff told us the registered manager was approachable and there was a good level of communication within the service.
People told us the service was friendly, responsive and well managed. People knew the managers and staff and spoke positively about them. The service sought people’s views and opinions and acted upon them.
This inspection took place on 16 and 20 March 2015. It was an unannounced inspection. The service had met all of the outcomes we inspected against at our last inspection on 12 June 2013.
Madley Park is a care home without nursing on the outskirts of Witney. The home cares for up to 60 older people, who are physically or mentally frail. The home is run by the Orders of St. John Care Homes. On the day of our inspection 57 people were 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.
Staff and external health professionals told us there were not sufficient staff to meet people’s needs. However, people told us there were enough staff, we observed staff did not appear to be rushed and attended to people promptly. Staffing levels were calculated on the number of people rather than the level of their needs.
People’s medicines were not always administered safely. Some people had their medicine left with them to take which meant staff could not be sure medicines had been taken. Medicines were stored securely and in line with manufacturer’s guidelines.
Records relating to falls analysis were not always complete. Actions had been identified to reduce the risk of falls across the service, but these had not been followed up and progress could not be evidenced.
The registered manager was well respected by staff and created an open and supportive environment for staff to work in, which encouraged improvement. However, some staff told us that senior managers within the provider organisation where not so supportive.
People told us they felt safe. Staff received regular training to make sure they stayed up to date with recognising and reporting safety concerns. The service notified the appropriate authorities where concerns relating to abuse were identified and took action to protect people.
Risks to people were managed and reviewed. Where risks to people had been identified risk assessments were in place and action had been taken to reduce the risks. Staff were aware of people’s needs and followed guidance to keep them safe while maintaining their freedom.
The service ensured staff had the necessary skills to support people through, induction training, ongoing training and regular supervision. Records confirmed staff received appropriate support.
The registered manager and staff were aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), which governs decision-making on behalf of adults who may not be able to make particular decisions themselves, and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). These safeguards protect the rights of people by ensuring if there are any restrictions to their freedom and liberty these have been authorised by the local authority as being required to protect the person from harm. Records confirmed people who lacked the capacity to consent were supported in their best interests.
People we spoke with told us that they enjoyed the meals provided. We saw the staff were kind and where appropriate, provided the support people needed with eating and drinking. People made positive comments about the care provided. People’s comments included; “It’s very pleasant” and “It’s as nice as you’ll find for anywhere similar.”
People with complex needs received effective care. The service made appropriate referrals to healthcare professionals and their advice and guidance was followed. This included the district nurse and GP.
The service had systems to assess the quality of the service provided in the home. Learning was identified and action taken to make improvements. These systems ensured people were protected against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care. This included complaints. People we spoke with knew how to complain and there was a complaints procedure in place. Records showed complaints were dealt with compassionately and in a timely fashion.
People told us they were happy at the home. One person said “I like all the staff. I like it here, I’m home”. Another person told us, “It’s good here. I don’t have any concerns”. While another person told us, “I couldn’t do any better than this, I’m lucky”.
People who used the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.
People who used the service told us that care workers were not rushed and had time to meet their needs. One person told us, “I use my call bell, and the girls come. I’m never left waiting”. Another person told us, “I don’t have to wait. The staff are quite quick”. Another person told us, "They’re always there when I need them".
Care workers, care leads and domestic workers received appropriate professional development. Care workers we spoke with said they did not feel supported by the provider, but the provider was aware of their concerns and had a project plan in place.
The provider had an effective system in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive and to assess and manage risks to the health and safety of people who used the service.
We observed people being treated in a respectful manner by all staff. People were observed to be called by their preferred name and this had been recorded on care plans. One person told us that care staff " always made sure that I have my jewellery on, hair done as I like and my nails tidy"
The home is well supported with a number of voIunteers, who ran the shop and bar as well as accompanying people on outings or providing one to one activities.
The training records that we looked at confirmed, that all staff had received training in safeguarding adults from abuse.
We were told that staff were "excellent", "but sometimes staff had seemed thin on the ground". We were told by a senior manager, that due to the increasing dependency needs of the people who use the service, the provider was to review staffing levels.
The service had systems in place to monitor the quality of its service. There had been regular meetings with people who use the service and their family. Relatives told us that they felt safe being able to express their views about the home.