We carried out a review of the data available to us about OSJCT Old Station 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 Old Station House, you can give feedback on this service.
OSJCT Old Station House is a residential home that is registered to provide care for up to 43 people in a purpose-built building with individual flats over three floors. The home was supporting 37 people at the time of the visit.
We found the following examples of good practice:
On arrival to the service, there was an infection control process which included temperatures being taken. We saw visitors were required to wear the appropriate PPE in line with government guidelines.
The home was clean, and a rigorous cleaning schedule was in place and followed by a dedicated cleaning team and staff. Additional cleaning schedules had been introduced to reflect additional tasks such as cleaning of frequently touched surfaces. Regular audits took place which led to improvements and safety.
Staff had been well trained and followed robust PPE [personal protective equipment] protocols. The provider ensured there was a sufficient stock of personal protective equipment (PPE). Staff had infection control training and understood the correct donning and doffing procedure. The Head of Care audited areas such as effective hand hygiene. This included observations using a lotion and UV torch to show whether hand washing was thorough.
People were supported by a consistent team of permanent staff whom they knew well.
The provider participated in the COVID-19 regular testing programme for both people and staff.
The provider had systems in place to ensure safe admissions, including only allowing new admissions after a confirmed negative result of the COVID-19 test.
Additional, regular communication took place. This included updates for people and their relatives to share the current 'Covid-19 status' of the service and any changes to the visiting policy. We saw a letter dated 3 February 2022 had been sent to family and friends from the provider’s Operations Director to provide latest information on visiting guidance.
The provider considered risks and impact of the inspection on the individual staff members, this included around their health conditions as well as their caring responsibilities.
The provider ensured people's relatives were able to stay in touch with people. For example, through visits in line with government guidance and the essential care giver status.
OSJCT Old Station House is a residential home that was providing care to 40 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 43 people in a purpose-built building with individual flats over three floors.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People told us they felt safe living at Old Station House. However, we had comments from people, their relatives and some staff that there were not always enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff said that they ‘pulled together’ to ensure people received their care. Areas of the home needed improvement to ensure they were kept continually clean and infection free.
We spoke with the registered manager and area operations manager who acknowledged people’s views. The registered manager and provider had plans in place to improve the staffing and housekeeping situation to bring about the required improvements.
Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to meet people's individual needs and were supported with relevant training and support. People were encouraged to maintain their independence and live their lives as fully as possible.
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 home supported this practice.
People were able to maintain contact with those important to them including family and friends. Staff understood the importance of these contacts for people's health and well-being. Staff knew people well and treated them as individuals.
People continued to enjoy meaningful activities to reduce social isolation. The home had an established activity co-ordinator who worked with volunteers to maximise opportunities for people to join in where they wished.
Quality and safety checks helped ensure people were safe and protected from harm. This meant the home could continually improve. Audits helped identify areas for improvement and this learning was shared with staff through handovers and meetings. The management of the home were respected.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection: The last rating for this service was Good (published 29 April 2017).
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
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.
Why the service is rated good:
People mostly remained safe living in the home. The service had not always followed policies and procedures around recording of medicines. The service immediately put measures in place to address this issue. We have made a recommendation about the recording of medicines.
The registered manager had effective procedures for ensuring that any concerns about people’s safety were appropriately managed and reported. Risk assessments were appropriately assessed, managed and reviewed.
There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and staff had time to spend with people. The service had a robust recruitment and selection process. Records confirmed that staff had received training appropriate to meet the needs of the people they cared for.
People continued to receive effective care from staff that had the skills and knowledge to support them and meet their needs. People were supported to have maximum 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 G.P's to ensure their health and well-being was monitored.
People told us they were happy with the care and support they received at the service and valued the relationships they had with staff.
People’s care needs were accurately recorded with clear guidance for care staff to follow on how to support them. People knew how to complain and the provider’s complaints policy was displayed around the home. All the complaints we saw had been dealt with appropriately in line with the policy.
People’s emotional wellbeing was considerably enhanced due to a highly motivated activities team which involved the local community and volunteers. People had the choice of many activities taking place within the home and also lots of trips out. This was helped by the volunteers assisting with trips out. We heard high praise from people about enjoying their life by having a wealth of activities and outings to take part in. We heard that people’s lives had been improved by feeling involved and included.
Regular residents and relatives meetings were held and people’s opinions and suggestions were recorded and acted upon. People told us they knew the senior management of the service and they were accessible and approachable. People told us they felt listened to and could change things about the service.
The registered manager monitored the quality of the care provided by completing, analysing and auctioning regular audits. People’s opinions were sought and acted upon to improve the service. Regular meetings with people took place to gain their views.
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service. This was an unannounced inspection which meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.
Old Station House provides personal care for up to forty three older people in the Oxford area. Accommodation is provided in forty three flats arranged on 3 floors.
At our last inspection on 12 May 2013 the service met all of the outcomes we inspected against.
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 and shares the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law with the provider”
People told us they felt safe. One person said “Generally I feel safe here and well cared for,” The provider had effective procedures for ensuring that any concerns about people’s safety were appropriately reported.
Risks to people were appropriately assessed, managed and reviewed. We reviewed the history of the service in relation to risks and found no concerns. All assessments had been reviewed on a monthly basis ensuring they were up to date, and that people’s needs were being met appropriately. Some people were living with dementia. Activities for these people were linked with their preferences and personal histories. All staff had received dementia training and we saw them offering people choices and giving them time to choose.
There was enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. People told us they felt there was enough staff. Staffing levels matched planned staffing levels and the head of care told us staffing requirements were driven by people’s needs and the skills mix of the staff group. The service had a robust recruitment and selection process. Records confirmed that staff had received training appropriate to meet the needs of the people they cared for.
The home was clean and tidy and free from malodours. An infection control policy was in place and staff were aware of, and followed its guidance. People told us and we observed staff following safe routines using protective equipment such as gloves, aprons and hand gel.
At the time of our visit no one was subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) application. This is where a person can be lawfully deprived of their liberties where it is deemed to be in their best interests or their own safety. Staff at the home had knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and applied that knowledge appropriately.
People’s care needs were accurately recorded with clear guidance for care staff to follow on how to support them. The home contacted other healthcare professionals if they had concerns over people’s needs. People’s choices and preferences on how they wanted to be supported were also recorded.
People told us they were happy with the care and support they received at the service and valued the relationships they had with staff. One person said “I couldn’t have been looked after better even in the Ritz in London. They are all very kind and very patient.” We saw people being treated with dignity and respect.
People knew how to complain and the provider’s complaints policy was displayed around the home. All the complaints we saw had been dealt with appropriately, compassionately and in a timely fashion in line with the policy.
Regular “residents and relatives” meetings were held and people’s opinions and suggestions were recorded and acted upon. People told us they knew the senior management of the service and they were accessible and approachable. People told us they felt listened to and could change things about the service.
The registered manager monitored the quality of the care provided by completing regular audits. Results were analysed and action plans for improvement made where necessary. People’s opinions were sought and acted upon to improve the service. Regular surveys were conducted and results feedback to people via meetings and a newsletter.
Staff that we spoke with told us staffing levels had greatly improved since some staff from Mayott House had been transferred to the home. At the time of the inspection carried out on a Sunday, the manager and head of care were on duty in addition to a care leader and six care staff, and supported by a team of catering and housekeeping staff. The manager told us she and the head of care were on duty, in order to support people who had moved into the home during the previous week.
We spent time with people who told us they felt safe because their concerns would be taken seriously by the care or senior staff. One person told us "I feel safe because the staff spent time asking am I alright". Another person told us "I feel safe because there are certain staff that I feel I could speak to". Another person told us "my family pop in at various times of the day, If I am unhappy or unsafe then my family would speak to the person in charge".
One person told us "if I had a complaint about the food, then I would speak to the staff. If it was serious, then I would speak to my family".