Oxford Manor Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People and staff were encouraged and supported to raise concerns, they felt confident they would be treated with compassion and understanding.

Staff told us they were updated about incidents and changes. Incidents and accidents were discussed in handovers, meetings and group supervisions. One staff member told us, “Staff know people’s needs, most staff are really familiar with residents, if anything changes, we notice it really quickly.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The home worked with a number of professionals to ensure continuity of care within the home. The home had regular visits from the GP and made appropriate referrals to healthcare professionals. We spoke with the GP who said, “I have been visiting here for a number of years, and I am really impressed with the significant improvements the home has made. I visit once a week to conduct ward rounds, so I have seen the improvements first hand.”

Staff knew people and their risks well and told us how they worked with professionals to keep people safe. One staff member commented, “Our nurses keep us updated with any changes after GP round.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People using the service and their relatives told us they felt safe and were happy with their care. We were told, “Yes, I feel safe here, there is security, that was the main thing and there are always people here to help you” and “I am happy, I feel alright here.”

We spoke with staff about working with vulnerable people. One staff member told us, “I have had safeguarding training. If I suspected a resident [person] was being abused, I would whistle-blow to my nurse and my manager. I could also inform the police and CQC.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

A risk management system was in place and risk assessments were held in care plans. These provided staff with guidance on how to manage the risk. For example, one person was at high risk of seizures. The person had been stable for 4 years and their condition was managed with medication.

Details of how the person was to be supported during a seizure were contained in the care plan and included positioning the person on the floor if out of bed and keeping them safe. Monitoring the length of the seizure and when to call the emergency services. The GP spoke with us about people’s specific conditions. They said, “All the epilepsy patients [people] have been stable for some years, so I have no concerns with their care. Diabetes is also well managed.”

A member of staff spoke with us about diabetes. They said, “We have some residents [people] who are diabetic, most of them have different diet plans, some of them sweetener, some low sugar, during handover, if the care assistant is not familiar with the resident, they familiarise with the care plan, and nurses will remind us, nurses make sure care staff are doing the right thing.”

Where appropriate, mental capacity assessments were in place to safeguard people’s rights in relation to decisions about any risks.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The home had fire safety equipment to meet standards and staff had completed the relevant fire training.

The home was clean and free from malodours and designed to be dementia friendly. The windows all had window restrictors in place. People’s rooms were identified with clear door numbers, memory boxes and the person’s names, handrails contrasted with wall colourings and lighting was not too bright. This helped people to navigate around the home. Corridors displayed period pictures and posters that helped to create a calm and relaxing atmosphere.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

One staff member told us, “We have recruited more staff recently, so things are ok”, “Staffing has improved, downstairs is fine, upstairs can get busy, but dementia can be unpredictable, so it is to be expected. It is getting better though as we get more organised and we now have regular staff teams” and “Staffing has definitely improved; it is not 100% but it is getting there.” The registered manager said, “We have been actively recruiting for a while now and we are finally at the point where I haven’t needed to use agency staff.”

People told us there were enough staff. One person said, “The numbers do vary but overall, I would say that there are enough.”

Throughout the inspection, we observed staff responded to people promptly and had time to interact with people whilst supporting them.

The provider had robust recruitment systems in place to ensure people were supported by well trained, experienced staff. Background checks were conducted to ensure staff were safe to work with vulnerable people.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) during personal care. Staff understood the need to wear PPE and how to manage the risk of infection. Infection control policies were in place and up to date.

Cleaning schedules were in place and people’s rooms were maintained to a high standard. Toilets and bathrooms were clean and regularly checked.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People received their medicine as prescribed. Staff had been trained to administer medicines, their competency to do so was regularly checked. Records confirmed any medicine errors were reported and investigated. One staff member told us, “My competency is assessed annually.”

Medicine records were accurate and up to date and stock balances were correct. Controlled drugs were held securely and managed appropriately.

People’s medicines were regularly reviewed by the GP and regular audits monitored medicines to help the home manage medicines efficiently.