Archived: Oldway Heights

This inspection took place on 12 and 17 July 2016 when there were 26 people living at the service. Ten other people who lived at the service were away on holiday. The first day of the inspection was unannounced. The service was last inspected on 22 May 2014 when it met the requirements that were inspected.

A registered manager was employed by the service. They were also registered to manage another care service owned by the same provider and situated nearby. They were supported in their role as registered manager of Oldway Heights by an assistant manager. 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 knew people well. Staff were kind and caring and ensured people’s privacy and dignity was respected. When addressing people staff used people’s preferred names and appropriate language. We observed positive relationships between staff and people living at the service. There was much fun, laughter and appropriate banter between staff and the people they supported. Following the inspection a relative contacted us to tell us about the care their relative received. They told us everything was “absolutely wonderful”. They also said the staff were so friendly and always had time to sit and chat with their relative. Throughout the inspection people approached staff in a relaxed manner, smiling and laughing. This indicated they felt safe in the company of staff.

People’s needs were met in a safe and timely way as there were enough staff available. People were supported to go into the community. One person told us they attended the local college. In-house activities included board games, crafts and visiting entertainers. On the first day of our inspection several people were away on holiday. The registered manager told us this was an annual event when a large house with a swimming pool was hired. While some people stayed overnight at the house, others, who did not wish to stay overnight visited on a daily basis. On the second day of our inspection everyone told us how much they had enjoyed their holiday and day visits.

Care plans were detailed and gave good information to staff about people’s needs. People were supported to be involved in making decisions about their care if they wished. Risks to people were assessed and plans put in place to minimise and manage any identified risks. Risks such as self-harm, going out into the community and pressure areas were assessed and well managed.

People were supported to receive a healthy balanced diet whilst enabling them to make choices for themselves. There was a choice of food available for each meal and people told us the food was good. People were weighed regularly to ensure a healthy weight was maintained. People were supported to maintain good health from a number of visiting healthcare professionals. Records confirmed people received regular visits from GPs and community nurses. We spoke with one visiting healthcare professional who told us there was open communication between them and staff at the service. They told us staff always ensured any instructions they gave were carried out.

Regular meetings were held for people to discuss any issues. At one meeting in January 2016 some people had said they would like to go fishing. We saw that this had happened. People had also been told about plans to extend the building to include new bedrooms and the hot tub people had previously asked for.

People were supported by staff who had received training in the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Everyone living at the service had been assessed as having capacity to make their own decisions.

Robust recruitment procedures ensured people were protected from the risks associated with staff that may be unsuitable to work with vulnerable people. All the required checks were made before staff were employed. People were protected from the risks of abuse because staff knew how to recognise and report suspicions of abuse. Staff had received training in this area as well as a variety of other training including, first aid and food hygiene. There were safe systems in place to manage people's medicines. Medicines were stored safely and staff had received training in administering medicines.

The registered manager was open and supportive. One staff member told us “I’ve worked a lot in care, but this place has more heart and soul than anywhere I have ever worked”. There was a complaint system in place and people told us they were confident any concerns would be dealt with. There were effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor care and plan on-going improvements. Records were well maintained and kept securely.

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with seven people who lived in the home, six staff supporting them, and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. Medication systems in use meant people had their medicines at the time they needed them and in a safe way. Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. Staff recruitment files showed us that the service had undertaken appropriate checks. CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The Registered Manager told us they had not needed to submit any applications. Proper policies and procedures were in place and the Registered Manager had liaised with the local DoLS team. The Registered Manager and senior staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

People who lived in the home told us they were happy with the care they received. Comments included "I'm happy that they do things as I wish' and 'I'm well looked after'. We spoke with staff who were able to tell us how they met people's care needs. We observed the care provided and spoke with the people who lived in the home. This gave us evidence that staff knew people well. People's health and care needs were assessed. Regular care plan reviews were carried out to ensure they reflected people's current needs.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. Feedback from people about the staff was positive, for example; 'The staff are just lovely, they know what to do' and 'The staff are always courteous'. When speaking with staff it was clear that they genuinely cared for the people they supported.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. The service carried out an assessment to ensure it was able to meet people's needs. We saw the complaints procedure was on display in the entrance to the home. People told us they felt able to speak to the Registered Manager or staff if they were unhappy about something. They felt confident that the service would deal with any matters to their satisfaction.

Is the service well-led?

People who lived in the home were encouraged to be involved in how the home was run. People told us they could say what they wanted to in residents meetings and felt listened to. We saw that people had been involved in planning the new menus. People who lived in the home told us they were asked about the quality of the service. People told us that their comments were listened to and acted upon. People told us "If I've got a problem, I go straight to the office and they sort it out' and "I've got no complaints, everything goes well'. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. Staff commented "It's all going well' and 'If we've got any problems, we can go straight to the manager, they listen and they're very good'. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

During our observations and conversations, we saw care workers treating people with respect. Care workers responded to people's requests and people appeared to enjoy the interactions and conversations. People told us "the staff are very nice' and 'they always come in and have a chat'. People who lived in the home were positive about the care and support they received. Comments included ""it's a good place" and "they support me very well ".

Care workers knew how to report concerns to ensure people were protected from the risk of harm. People who lived in the home told us they felt safe.

Staff had received appropriate training and professional development which enabled them to carry out their job role effectively. We spoke with a care worker who told us 'there is a lot of training offered, I'm starting my NVQ'.

The home had a comprehensive quality assurance system to assess and monitor the quality of the service. People told us that their comments were listened to and acted upon. For example, people told us about the resident's meetings that were held in the home. People were involved in discussions and decisions relating to the environment, food and activities.

Oldway Heights provides care for people with a wide range of needs. Some of the people living at Oldway Heights are there for a period of recuperation, rehabilitation or respite and it is intended will return to their home. Other people live there long-term. We looked at care plans reflecting both areas of work.

We found that people were being supported well. We saw staff treating people with respect, but also engaging in good humoured interactions and receiving these in return.

People were supported to follow interests of their own or engage with activities provided. We saw that people enjoyed these and their participation was valued by staff. Some people told us they found the number of wheelchairs in the lounge limited their participation. The home is planning a new conservatory which will help alleviate the crowding in some communal areas.

We found that medication was being administered safely. There were were some inconsistencies in recording that meant the home could not complete a full medication audit.

We found that people were involved in making decisions about their care. When their capacity to do so was limited we saw that the home protected their rights by calling in appropriate professionals to agree actions in their 'best interests'.

People told us they liked living at the home overall. One said "The care and treatment I get here is much better than where I was six years ago. They treat you as if you were in your own home. I'm very happy."