Background to this inspection
Updated
6 June 2019
The inspection:
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team:
The inspection was carried out by one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
Service and service type:
Oakwood Court is a care home. People in a care home receive accommodation and nursing or personal care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection:
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection. The inspection started on 22 March 2019 and finished on 2 April 2019.
What we did:
¿ We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. This included information from other agencies and statutory notifications sent to us by the registered manager about events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law.
¿ We spoke with 13 people to hear their views of the service. We also spoke with seven relatives who visited the service.
¿ We spoke with the regional manager, registered manager, deputy manager, a senior care assistant and a care assistant.
¿ During the inspection we also spoke with two healthcare professionals. Before the inspection we received feedback from one healthcare professional.
¿ We reviewed a range of records. This included four people’s care records and medicine records.
¿ We looked at recruitment records for two staff, supervision and training records of all staff.
¿ We reviewed records relating to the management of the home including audits and meeting minutes.
Updated
6 June 2019
Oakwood Court is registered to provide support to a maximum of 35 people and 32 people were living at the service at the time of our inspection. The registered manager confirmed two bedrooms that could be used for double occupancy were used as single rooms. The service is intended for older people, who may be living with a physical disability, sensory impairment or a dementia type illness.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
People’s experience of using this service:
People told us they were very happy living at the service.
¿ Whilst the provider had quality assurance systems to review the support and care provided, the systems did not pick up some areas of record keeping we identified. Person centred aspects of some people’s care plans had been missed. Actions points from weekly medicine audits had not been followed up and a fluid chart for one person did not demonstrate they always received enough to drink.
¿ There was a delay between day one and two of inspection. This was a result of a virus which meant the home was closed to visitors. During this time the provider had addressed all matters raised on the first day of inspection. Following the inspection, we received actions plans that detailed the actions taken and to be taken in relation to matters raised on day two of our inspection. As a result, there is no breach of regulation, but further time will be needed to embed the changes made and ensure they become part of everyday practices.
¿ There were safeguarding systems and processes that protected people from harm. Staff knew the signs of abuse and what to do if they suspected it. A staff member told us, “I would report it to a senior or manager and they would deal with it. If they didn’t I would use the whistleblowing procedure.”
¿ People and relatives provided very positive feedback about the care, staff and management. One visitor told us, their relative had improved so much since moving to the home and was now eating better and taking more interest in life. This was put down to staff understanding and encouragement and attention to good care.
¿ All fire safety equipment was serviced and checked at regular intervals. Regular water testing was completed, and a risk assessment had been completed in relation to Legionella.
¿ All areas of the home were clean and there were effective systems to audit in relation to infection control.
¿ There were enough staff to meet people’s individual needs. People told us they felt safe and people were seen to be comfortable in their surroundings. Staff knew how to safeguard people from abuse and what they should do if they thought someone was at risk. Incidents and accidents were well managed.
¿ People’s needs were effectively met because staff had the training and skills to fulfil their role. This included training to meet people’s specialist needs in relation to living with dementia.
¿ Staff attended regular supervision meetings and received an annual appraisal of their performance.
¿ People were treated with dignity and respect by kind and caring staff. Staff had a good understanding of the care and support needs of people and had developed positive relationships with them.
¿ Staff were aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards (DoLS).
¿ People were supported to attend health appointments, such as the GP or dentist.
¿ People had enough to eat and drink and their menus were varied and well balanced. People’s meals were served in a way that respected their specific needs.
¿ People were supported to take part in a range of activities to meet their individual needs and wishes.
¿ There was a detailed complaint procedure, and this was displayed so that anyone wanting to raise a concern could do so.
¿ The provider had embraced new developments in technology. For example, a new electronic care planning system was being introduced. The new system included portals that enabled people and where appropriate, their relatives to comment on the care plans. Alexa, a voice-based electronic device that enables you to instantly connect to play music had been installed in the lounge.
¿ The service demonstrated they listened to people and staff. Feedback received had highlighted that people and staff felt there were shortages in staff at key points in the day. Agreement had been reached to provide an extra care staff member in the afternoons and in addition a general assistant and part time activity coordinator.
Rating at last inspection:
At the last inspection the service was rated Good. (published 9 August 2016).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.