You are here

Oulton Park Care Centre Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 21 December 2018

This inspection took place on 6 and 9 November 2018. The first day was unannounced.

Oulton Park is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Oulton Park is registered to provide care for up to 60 people. It provides purpose built accommodation on one level. The service has a dedicated dementia unit. 55 people were living in the service during our inspection.

The service’s registered manager had left the week before our inspection. 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. The provider had responded to the departure of the registered manager and made appropriate arrangements for the management of the service. This included the transfer of a registered manager from one of the provider’s other services to Oulton Park to manage the service. The new manager had carried out a variety of audits in the service and during our inspection they provided us with an action plan setting out how they planned to improve the service.

People did not always receive their medicines as prescribed. People who had medicines prescribed to be administered at specific times were not always given them at that time. Stock control measures had not always ensured there were sufficient medicines in stock to meet people’s prescription.

Care plans were not always fully completed to reflect people’s changing needs. Where there was a risk to people from receiving care and support, for example the use of bed rails, risk assessments were not always in place. Care plans did not detail people’s life history to enable staff to provide people with the care and support as they required.

The provider had audits in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These had identified where the service was not providing good quality care and support. However, we found that in some instances issues identified in an audit had not been dealt with promptly.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

We received mixed feedback from people as to whether there were sufficient staff to provide the care and support they required. Staff told us that this had been an issue but that this had recently improved. The new manager told us that they had addressed how the rota was managed and this had resulted in improvements. During our inspection visits we observed staff had time to sit and speak with people.

Staff were supported to develop their skills, knowledge and competencies by completing a range of developmental training. During our inspection visits we observed positive, caring interactions between people and staff.

People’s nutritional needs were met. Mealtime experience were pleasant and unhurried with people provided with the support they required. Where people had specific individual nutritional needs, these were met.

Staff contacted health care professionals promptly when people were unwell and people were supported to access a wide range of services to maintain their health and well-being. There was good liaison with the local GP and clinical commissioning group.

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 sought consent before carrying out care support and people told us they were happy with the care they received.

The provider used a system of audits used to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These had identified where the service was not

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 21 December 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

People did not always get their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were not always managed to ensure they were available when people needed them.

Care plans did not always contain assessments of the risks to people from receiving care.

There was sufficient staff to provide the support people required.

Staff had received training in safeguarding people from abuse and knew how to raise concerns.

Effective

Good

Updated 21 December 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received the training and support they needed to provide care and support.

People received effective nutrition and were supported with their dietary needs.

The design and decoration of the service supported people’s independence.

Caring

Good

Updated 21 December 2018

The service was caring.

People were very complimentary about the staff who supported them, finding them kind and caring.

Staff treated people with dignity and respect.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and support

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 21 December 2018

The service was not consistently responsive.

Care plans did not always fully reflect people’s care needs.

People were supported to participate in a variety of activities.

Arrangements were in place for dealing with concerns and

complaints.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 21 December 2018

The service was not consistently well-led.

Where the provider identified concerns in the service they had not ensured that prompt action was taken.

The provider was aware of challenges to the service and provided support when required.

There was an open culture in the service.

The service worked in partnership with other agencies.