You are here

Archived: Oaktree Court Limited Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 19 October 2018

Oaktree Court Limited provides care to people living in 51 purpose-built flats on a shared site. The accommodation is bought and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for this type of service. This inspection looked at people’s personal care service.

Not everyone living at Oaktree Court Limited receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of inspection, only two people were receiving personal care. This was our first inspection of the service since it was registered with the CQC.

Systems in place to manage the safe administration of medicines required improvement. Medication administration records (MAR) were not being used by staff who were supporting people with applying topical medication. The staff had only recently started supporting people with medicine administration, and whilst MAR sheets and a medication policy were in place, they were not being used or followed accurately.

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 received safeguarding training so they knew how to recognise the signs and symptoms of abuse and how to report any concerns of abuse. Risk management plans were in place to protect and promote people’s safety. The staffing arrangements were suitable to keep people safe. The staff recruitment practices ensured staff were suitable to work with people. Staff followed infection control procedures to reduce the risks of spreading infection or illness.

The provider understood their responsibility to comply with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS), which came into force in August 2016. The AIS is a framework that makes it a legal requirement for all providers to ensure people with a disability or sensory loss can access and understand information they are given.

Staff received induction training when they first started work at the service. On-going refresher training ensured staff were able to provide care and support for people following current best practice guidance. Staff supervision systems ensured that staff received regular one to one supervision and appraisal of their performance.

Staff were able to support people to eat and drink sufficient amounts to maintain a varied and balanced diet, but this type of support was not currently required by the two people using the service. Records about people’s health requirements were documented. Staff were able to support people to access health appointments if required, but this type of support was not currently required by the two people using the service.

People were encouraged to be involved in decisions about their care and support. Staff demonstrated their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA) and they gained people's consent before providing personal care. People had their privacy, dignity and confidentiality maintained at all times. The provider had a complaints procedure in place to deal with complaints.

People had their diverse needs assessed, they had positive relationships with staff and received care in line best practice meeting people’s personal preferences. Staff consistently provided people with respectful and compassionate care.

The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. The registered manager was a visible role model in the service. People told us that they had confidence in the manager’s ability to provide consistently high quality managerial oversight and lea

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 19 October 2018

The service was not always safe.

Medication administration systems were not always used safely.

Staff were knowledgeable about protecting people from harm and abuse.

There were enough trained staff to support people with their needs.

Staff had been safely recruited within the service.

Staff were trained in infection control, and people were protected from the spread of infection

Effective

Good

Updated 19 October 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had suitable training to keep their skills up to date and were supported with supervisions.

People could receive support with food and drink if they required it.

People had access to health care professionals to ensure they received effective care or treatment.

Consent was gained before carrying out any care.

Caring

Good

Updated 19 October 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported to make decisions about their daily care.

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion.

People were treated with dignity and respect, and had the privacy they required.

Responsive

Good

Updated 19 October 2018

The service was responsive.

Care and support plans were personalised and reflected people's individual requirements.

People were involved in decisions regarding their care and support needs.

There was a complaints system in place and people were aware of this.

Well-led

Good

Updated 19 October 2018

The service was well led.

People knew the registered manager, and were able to see them when required.

People were asked for, and gave, feedback which was acted on.

Quality monitoring systems were in place.