We carried out a review of the data available to us about Oxford Beaumont on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Oxford Beaumont, you can give feedback on this service.
Oxford Beaumont Care Home is a nursing home contained in a purpose-built building. The home
accommodates up to 49 older people with a range of needs, and at the time of our inspection there were 36
people living at the home.
People's experience of using this service and what we found
There was a new registered manager in post who had successfully created an open and transparent culture
which contributed to staff work satisfaction. Staff told us the measures the registered manager had
introduced had improved the service and raised staff morale.
Staff had opportunities to raise concerns and discuss issues with the registered manager. They told us the
"Managers office door is always open, she is always ready to listen" We saw procedures within the home had been reviewed. For example, nurses told us people’s dependency assessments had been explained and reviewed and that this was an improvement.
There was an up to date whistle blowing policy in place. Whistleblowing is a way staff can raise concerns
they have about the service. Staff we spoke with were aware of the policy and told us they were confident to
report concerns.
New admissions to the home required a negative test and 14 day isolation period. Staff had been well trained and followed robust PPE (personal protective equipment) protocols. Due to the layout and size of the building, social distancing was in place and followed. Staff had taken steps that supported people with social distancing where-ever possible. The management were aware of zoning guidelines but did not need to implement it as no people were Covid-19 confirmed or suspected in this location.
The provider ensured there was a sufficient stock of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the vetted
supplier ensured it complied with the quality standards. Staff had infection control training and understood
the correct donning and doffing procedure.
People were supported by a stable and committed team of staff whom they knew well. This helped people
to recognize the individual staff with the need to wear face masks.
Staff were well supported and praised the management team, comments included; "I get good support from my manager." The provider considered risks and impact of the inspection on the individual staff members, this included around their health conditions as well as their caring responsibilities.
Additional cleaning schedules had been introduced to reflect additional tasks such as cleaning of frequently
touched surfaces. Regular audits took place which led to improvements and safety. For example, carpets in one of the dementia units were being changed.
Regular testing for Covid-19 was conducted for both people living at the service and the staff. There was a
comprehensive contingency plan of what to do in case of an outbreak.
The provider ensured people's relatives were able to stay in touch with people and the local community. For
example, by using technology and through safe, face to face visits in an adapted shielded room.
Why we inspected
We identified concerns in relation to working practices which could indicate a closed culture at the home. As
a result, we undertook a targeted inspection for us to examine those risks and have reported on our findings
in the Well led key question.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all
care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the
service can respond to coronavirus and other infection outbreaks effectively.
CQC have introduced targeted inspections to follow up on Warning Notices or to check specific concerns.
They do not look at an entire key question, only the part of the key question we are specifically concerned
about. Targeted inspections do not change the rating from the previous inspection. This is because they do
not assess all areas of a key question.
The overall rating for the service has not changed following this targeted inspection and remains Good. We
found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from our concerns.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our reinspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
The Oxford Beaumont provides nursing and personal care for up to 49 people. The service also has two 'Memory lane' units that accommodated people living with dementia. On the day of our inspection 41 people were living at the service.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good overall.
Why the service is rated Good:
People remained safe living in the home. There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and staff had time to spend with people. Risk assessments were carried out and promoted positive risk taking which enable people to live their lives as they chose. People received their medicines safely.
People continued to receive effective care from staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them and meet their needs. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the procedures in the service supported this practice. People were supported to access health professionals when needed and staff worked closely with people's GPs to ensure their health and well-being was monitored.
The service continued to provide support in a caring way. Staff supported people with kindness and compassion. Staff respected people as individuals and treated them with dignity. People were involved in decisions about their care needs and the support they required to meet those needs.
People had access to information about their care and staff supported people in their preferred method of communication. Staff also provided people with emotional support.
People’s nutritional needs were met and told us they enjoyed the food. Where people had specific dietary needs, these needs were met.
The service continued to be responsive to people's needs and ensured people were supported in a personalised way. People's changing needs were responded to promptly. People had access to a variety of activities that met their individual needs.
The service was led by a registered manager who promoted a service that put people at the forefront of all the service did. There was a positive culture that valued people, relatives and staff and promoted a caring ethos.
The registered manager monitored the quality of the service and looked for continuous improvement. There was a clear vision to deliver high-quality care and support and promote a positive culture that was person-centred, open, inclusive and empowering which achieved good outcomes for people. The registered manager was supported by the clinical development nurse, the area manager and provider.
This inspection took place on 3 December 2015. It was an unannounced inspection.
The Oxford Beaumont provides nursing and personal care for up to 49 people. The service also has a 'Memory lane' unit that accommodates people living with dementia. On the day of our inspection 33 people were living at the service.
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.
People received their medicines as prescribed. However, records of medicine stock were not always accurate. This did not impact on people’s safety.
The registered manager conducted audits to monitor the quality of service. However, audits were not always effective and had failed to identify the issues we highlighted during this inspection. Records relating to people’s assessment and care support needs were not always accurate and up to date. For example, some care plans contained conflicting information.
People were safe from the risk of abuse. Staff understood how to recognise and report concerns and the service worked with the local authority if there were any concerns. People told us they felt safe and were happy with the support they received. Staff assessed risks associated with people's care and took action to reduce risk.
There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff were not rushed in their duties and had time to chat with people and support them with activities. The service had robust recruitment procedures and conducted background checks to ensure staff were suitable for their role.
Staff understood the needs of people and provided care with kindness and compassion. People spoke positively about the service and the caring nature of the staff. Staff took time to talk with people and provide activities such as and arts and crafts, games and religious services.
The registered manager and staff were aware of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) which governs decision-making on behalf of adults who may not be able to make particular decisions themselves.
People told us they enjoyed the food and had enough to eat and drink. Where people needed support with eating and drinking this was provided in a discreet and caring fashion. Where people required special diets this was also provided.
People’s opinions were sought and acted upon to improve the service. Regular surveys were sent to people and their relatives and the results analysed. Where people and their relatives had made practical suggestions they were adopted to improve the service.
All staff spoke positively about the support they received from the registered manager. Staff told us
they were approachable and there was a good level of communication within the home. People knew the registered manager and spoke to them openly and with confidence.
Accidents and incidents were investigated and learning shared amongst the staff to prevent reoccurrence. The service had a culture of openness and honesty where people came first.
We identified one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activity) Regulation 2014. You can see what action we have required the provider to take at the end of this report.
We spoke with seven people who used the service. They all told us that they were happy at the home and they were content with the care they received. They told us they felt safe and involved in their care. One person said "I like it here. we are well cared for and I think it is very good". Another person said "it is a comfortable home, a very nice place".
We spoke with five care staff who told us they enjoyed working at the home and that they felt supported and well trained to carry out their roles. One senior nurse said "this is a good place, the people are comfortable and my staff are attentive and caring". Another said "I have not been here long but I love working here. The people are fantastic".
We looked at the training records and recruitment files for care workers and saw that they received appropriate and regular training and that they had been recruited and selected appropriately. This showed us that the care workers were suitable and capable to carry out their roles.
We saw that the home was clean and well presented, though the building was a little 'tired'. We also saw that the management monitored peoples' care and they listened and acted upon peoples' comments, suggestions and complaints. We saw that there was a good programme of activities for most people at the home however we did find that there was not enough activity or specialist stimulation for people living with dementia.
We found that people's dignity was maintained whilst care staff were delivering personal care and that all welfare risks were appropriately identified and managed. Refurbishment work was already scheduled to commence at the beginning of October 2012, to ensure that the environment was safe for people who lived in the home and the staff who worked there.