You are here

Oaktree Care Home Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 10, 11 September 2014
Date of Publication: 28 November 2014
Inspection Report published 28 November 2014 PDF | 103.34 KB


Inspection carried out on 10, 11 September 2014

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

At the time of the inspection the home did not have a manager. The provider had redeployed an interim manager. They had been managing the home for six weeks prior to our visit. A new manager had been appointed but they had not commenced at the time of our inspection.

The purpose of this inspection was to follow up previous non-compliance where we identified serious failings in the home.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, seeking experience and views from people who used the service, their relatives, the 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 protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition and dehydration. People were being supported at mealtimes so that they received sufficient amounts of food and drink that was provided to them.

The service was clean and hygienic. Appropriate guidance, equipment and facilities were in place for staff so that people were safe and protected from the risks associated with cross infection.

People lived in surroundings that were safe and promoted their wellbeing. Equipment provided to people was safe and properly maintained.

Additional cover was provided when there was any staff absence. We could not be satisfied that there were enough staff on duty. The staffing tool had been further developed and had taken into account the geography of the home, skill mix and dependency levels of people. However this was still in its pilot stage and under review.

Is it effective?

Improvements had been made to ensure people received appropriate care and support by using effective systems to assess, plan, implement, monitor and evaluate people's needs. People were now being involved throughout these processes. This ensured their needs were clearly identified and the support they received was meaningful and personalised.

Areas of additional training had been identified that were relevant to people's needs and to promote best practice. Training had been booked and some training had been completed.

Additional training, reviews of daily routines, new initiatives and equipment had helped ensure that people were receiving a nutritionally balanced diet and a sufficient fluid balance.

Is the service caring?

Staff treated people kindly and they were receiving care in a way that respected their dignity and independence. People were being supported at mealtimes with patience and by staff that were sensitive to their needs.

Additional training and care plan reviews had supported an individualised approach to care and independence was promoted.

The keyworker system and “resident” allocation had increased staff awareness of individuals' needs. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people’s lives, their likes and dislikes. Efforts were being made to enhance this knowledge so that their life experiences remained meaningful.

Is it responsive?

Improvements had been made to ensure people were involved in making decisions about the care and support they received.

Appropriate referrals were made to health and social care professionals. There had been recent referrals to nutritional and dementia specialists. This had provided staff with appropriate guidance so that people were supported safely in order to minimise the risks and enhance people’s experience.

It was evident that the home was making every effort to respond to the failings identified at the inspection of May 2014 in order to improve the quality and safety of service provided.

Is it well led?

In the absence of a registered manager the provider had deployed an interim manager in order to address previous non-compliance and to help support consistency and leadership in the home.

The quality monitoring systems in place had improved and were more effective in identifying where improvements were needed.

New systems had been implemented. Meetings for people and their relatives supported empowerment and effective change. The interim manager had looked at ways that staff would feel valued and be able to effect positive change and equally feel supported. Their ideas and experiences were being sought through new “Heads of Department” meetings.

You can see our judgements on the front page of this report.