Oxford House Residential Home

We found the following examples of good practice

Staff had been vigilant and consistent in following government guidance and good practice in relation to infection prevention and control. (IPC)

The provider had regularly communicated with the staff team and registered manager about changes in government guidance in relation to the pandemic. This helped ensure staff were up to date and able to mitigate potential risks.

The home was cleaned and touchpoints sanitised regularly. The home had an ozone machine which helped sanitise entire rooms.

People’s experience of using this service: People told us they felt safe and staff knew how to raise any concerns. Risks were managed, and good infection control practices were in place. Medicines were managed safely.

Where relevant, consent was recorded in people’s records. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff had received training that supported their role. A positive meal time experience was observed. Evidence of the involvement of professionals was recorded.

People were happy with the care they received. Staff were seen treating people with dignity, respect and their diverse needs considered. Staff delivered care to people in privacy. Records identified pre-admission assessments had been completed. A new electronic system was in place for care planning and risk assessments. A range of activities were provided to people.

Systems were in place to record and act on complaints. Audits were being undertaken. The registered manager confirmed actions taken would be recorded as completed. We received positive feedback about the registered manager and senior team. The registered manager demonstrated their understanding of the operation and management of the service.

Rating at last inspection: Good (21 October 2016).

Why we inspected: This was a scheduled inspection based on the previous ratings.

Follow up: The service will be re-inspected as per our inspection programme. We will continue to monitor any information we receive about the service. We may bring the next inspection forward if we receive any concerning information.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Oxford House is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for a maximum of 24 older people. The accommodation is provided over two floors with a passenger lift to both floors. There are 24 single rooms with en suite facilities. There are several communal areas including lounges and a separate dining room. There are enclosed garden areas and car parking.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the (CQC) 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.

When employing fit and proper persons the recruitment procedures of the home were not always followed. We made a recommendation that the provider follows their own policy and procedures when employing people to ensure that all the checks of suitability made were robust.

Medicines were being administered and recorded appropriately and were being kept safely.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to meet people’s needs and to provide their care and treatment safely.

Where safeguarding concerns or incidents had occurred these had been reported by the registered manager to the appropriate authorities and we could see records of the actions that had been taken by the home to protect people.

People’s rights were protected. The registered manager was knowledgeable about their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were only deprived of their liberty if this had been authorised by the appropriate body or where applications had been made to.

Staff had completed a variety of training that enabled them to improve their knowledge in order to deliver care and treatment safely.

People were supported to maintain good health and appropriate referrals to other healthcare professionals had been made.

There was a clear management structure in place and staff were happy with the level of support they received.

People living in the home were supported to access activities that were made available to them and pastimes of their choice.

Auditing and quality monitoring systems were in place that allowed the service to demonstrate effectively the safety and quality of the home.

Is the service safe? The training records showed that all staff had received training in movement and handling alongside other mandatory training. The owner explained that care records included all the relevant information regarding movement and handling, and that staff were alerted to when changes in these plans were made so that people were always kept safe.

Is the service effective? Staff had access to on-going training to meet the individual and diverse needs of the people they supported.

Is the service caring? People were supported to express their views and wishes about all aspects of life in the home. We saw that staff treated people with patience and compassion and respected their rights to privacy and dignity. All the people we spoke with said that the staff were very caring, and that they felt well supported. People told us that the staff were always happy to help, and always happy to spend time talking to them, and helping them get around the house. One person said that when they needed to move around, the staff used a hoist to help them get into a wheelchair. They said that the staff undertook this activity in a very caring and considerate manner, and that they always explained what was happening and why. Another person said that if they wanted a drink during the night then all they had to do was buzz the staff. They said that they always responded quickly and would always try to fulfil their request, be it for a drink, or help to get out of bed to use the toilet.

Is the service responsive? Records showed people and their family members had been involved in making decisions about what was important to them. People's care needs were kept under review and staff responded quickly when people's needs changed.

Is the service well-led? There were systems to monitor identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of the people who lived at the home. The management team were confident that staff used the correct movement and handling procedures when assisting people, and would monitor this as part of their ongoing quality assurance systems. The manager explained that she would ensure that staff were made aware of the concerns raised, (although they were unsubstantiated), to reinforce the home's ethos of person centred care, and the need to ensure people were treated with dignity and respect.

Relatives and people living at the home told us their care preferences and choices had been discussed with them. People had been asked for their agreement to their care plans. The manager knew about the legal processes to be followed if people did not have the capacity to consent to their care or if they were unable to make their own decisions.

Up to date care assessments and care plans were in place and these were followed in practice. A visiting district nurse told us people's health care needs were well supported and that the staff always contacted their team in a timely manner if they had any concerns about people's welfare.

Effective systems were in place for inducting, training and supporting staff. Staff members said they were equipped with the right skills to do their job. One person said, 'The staff are lovely and I feel very safe and secure living here'.

We found safe systems for the effective management of medicines. People could look after their own medicines if they wished to do so.

Systems to assess and monitor the quality of service were in place. People had opportunities to give their views about the service and these were acted on.