Archived: Oakwood House Care Home

There was a registered manager in place. However, they were currently not working at the home. They had taken up another role within the organisation. The deputy manager was acting as the 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.

This unannounced inspection took place on 17 May 2016.

Systems were in place to ensure that people’s needs were met effectively and safely. Staff were aware of the procedures for reporting concerns and protecting people from harm. Staff were only employed after the provider had carried out satisfactory pre-employment checks. Staff were trained and were well supported by their managers. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s assessed needs.

The CQC monitors the operations of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. People’s rights to make decisions about their care were respected. Where people were assessed as not having the mental capacity to make decisions, they had been supported in the decision making process. DoLS applications were in progress and had been submitted to the authorising body.

People’s health, care and nutritional needs were effectively met. Staff were aware of people’s dietary needs. Staff referred people appropriately to healthcare professionals. People received their prescribed medicines appropriately and medicines were stored in a safe way.

People received care and support from staff who were kind, caring and respectful. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity. People, their relatives, staff and other professionals were encouraged to express their views on the service that was provided.

Care plans contained all of the relevant information that staff required to meet people’s needs. People could therefore be confident that they would receive the care and support that they needed. Changes to people’s care was kept under review to ensure that the care and support provided was effective. Staff supported people to take part in hobbies, interests and activities of their choice. There was a varied programme of activities available to people.

The manager was supported by a deputy, care staff and ancillary staff. The manager ran the home very well and people, relatives and staff confirmed that the manager was approachable. People’s views were listened to and acted on.

inspection was to answer the five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, relatives and staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

Records we looked at showed us that risk assessments were completed where a risk had been identified. Measures were described and in place to reduce or eliminate such risks.

Requirements under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were recognised by members of staff as were deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS). Staff confirmed that they had completed regular training and we saw a list of dates when the staff refresher training was due to be updated. This showed that people were supported by members of staff who knew how to provide support in a safe and appropriate way.

Full information was on display to provide people with enough detail to take any concerns they may have to the relevant organisation. People who lived in the home and their relatives, in the main, had positive comments about the service. They told us that they felt safe and would discuss any worries or concerns with staff.

A recent safeguarding incident had been dealt with appropriately by the provider. All external agencies had been contacted and the service had worked closely to investigate this matter. We also saw documented evidence that preventative measures had been put into place to prevent any repeat of such an incident.

Is the service effective?

Our observations showed us that people who lived at the service were relaxed and confident when they discussed matters with members of staff. Staff took action when they saw anyone who appeared to be in need of support.

Any required actions from comments received following meetings with people who lived at the service as well as family members were recorded. These actions had timescales and a completion date to show that matters were dealt with within an acceptable time. This showed us that the provider effectively responded to the needs and comments of people who used the service and from their relatives

Our discussions at this time and our review of documents showed us that staff listened to people. They respected the wishes and choices of people who used the service. Staff acted in accordance with these choices and wishes to fully support people and encourage their independence.

Is the service caring?

Our observations showed us that people who lived at the service were treated with respect. Discussions with members of staff showed us that they knew the routines that people had chosen and were aware of their care and support needs. One family member told us about a choice their relative had made. There had been some difficulties with one area of person care, however, our records and discussions showed that the provider had looked into this and told us that records would be adjusted to clearly show what choices were offered and made by people who lived at the service.

We saw that people were dressed cleanly and appropriately for the weather on the day of our inspection. We also saw that staff spoke with respect and in an appropriate manner when they provided support or care to people in the home. People were asked before any care or support was provided.

One person told us that their relative had, 'Been so much better since moving into the home. Staff know and understand needs and give support and care when needed. They are wonderful.'

Is the service responsive?

We saw that people's individual physical needs were being met. We observed the lunch time meal and saw this was a calm and relaxed time. Staff did not rush anyone and they allowed time for the individual to fully understand their choices and the options offered to them. This showed us that staff supported the choices of people and involved individuals who lived at the service. Therefore staff supported the dignity of people and responded to individuals requests.

Is the service well led?

Staff explained that they undertook regular training and we saw a list of dates when the staff refresher training was due to be updated. This showed that the provider actively supported the continued learning of members of staff to provide an appropriate service to people.

Quality assurance systems were in place and regular quality audits were completed for all areas of the service. We saw records that clearly documented the observations that had been made when any improvements were needed. The dates when tasks had been completed was also recorded to show when any follow up was needed.

Records showed that equipment such had been regularly serviced and fire checks had been completed on extinguishers. This supported the safety of people who lived at the service, as well as the safety of visitors and staff.

The provider had started an extensive refurbishment and redecoration programme in April 2013. Evidence was seen that steps had been taken to minimise the disruption to the service during this time. This meant that the people who use the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.

We saw that there were enough staff on duty to ensure that the dignity and privacy of people who were using this service was promoted. This demonstrated to us that there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

Staff told us that they were up to date with their mandatory training and that they felt well supported by senior staff. This showed us that people were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

Records were seen that showed us that ongoing monitoring and assessment of the quality of the services being provided had taken place in this service. This meant that the provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.