You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 21 March 2018

We inspected the service on 28 December 2017. The inspection was unannounced. Oakdene Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Oakdene Care Home is registered to provide accommodation, nursing and personal care for 35 older people. There were 31people living in the service at the time of our inspection visit.

The service was operated by a company who was the registered provider. The company was run by a sole director. 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. In this report when we speak about both the company and the registered manager we refer to them as being, ‘the registered persons’.

At the last inspection on 14 April 2016 the service was rated, ‘Requires Improvement’. Although there were no breaches of the regulations we found that improvements were needed to ensure that people reliably benefited from receiving safe and responsive care. This was because there were not always enough care staff on duty, people did not always receive meals that met their expectations and care was not consistently provided in a person-centred way. In addition, there were shortfalls in the arrangements that had been made to ensure that the service was well led. In particular, quality checks had not always been completed in the right way and this had resulted in the persistence of the concerns we had noted.

At the present inspection the service was, ‘Good’. We found the individual concerns we had previously raised had been addressed. Suitable quality checks were being completed and had ensured that there were enough care staff on duty. In addition, people told us that they enjoyed their meals and we saw that they received person-centred care.

Our other findings were as follows. There were systems, processes and practices to safeguard people from situations in which they may experience abuse including financial mistreatment. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed, monitored and managed so they were supported to stay safe while their freedom was respected. This included occasions when people became distressed and needed support in order to keep themselves and others around them safe. In addition, medicines were managed safely. Background checks had been completed before new nurses and care staff had been appointed. Furthermore, there were robust arrangements to prevent and control of infection and lessons had been learned when things had gone wrong.

Nurses and care staff had been supported to deliver care in line with current best practice guidance. People were helped to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. In addition, suitable steps had been taken to ensure that people received coordinated and person-centred care when they used or moved between different services. Also, people had been supported to live healthier lives by having suitable access to healthcare services so that they received on-going healthcare support. Furthermore, people had benefited from most of the accommodation being adapted, designed and decorated in a way that met their needs and expectations.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and care staff supported them in the least restrictive ways possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion and they were given emotional support when needed. They had also been supported to express their views and be actively involved

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 21 March 2018

The service was safe.

Nurses and care staff knew how to keep people safe from the risk of abuse including financial mistreatment.

People were supported to avoid preventable accidents while their independence was promoted. In addition, when people became distressed nurses and care staff supported them so that everyone remained safe.

Medicines were managed safely.

Sufficient numbers of suitable staff were deployed in the service to support people to stay safe and meet their needs.

Background checks had been completed before new nurses and care staff were appointed.

There were suitable arrangements to prevent and control of infection.

Learn lessons were learned when things had gone wrong.

Effective

Good

Updated 21 March 2018

The service was effective.

Care was delivered in line with current best practice guidance.

People enjoyed their meals and they were helped to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet.

There were suitable arrangements to enable people to receive coordinated care when they used different services and they had received on-going healthcare support.

Most of the accommodation was adapted, designed and decorated to meet people’s needs and expectations.

Suitable arrangements had been made to obtain consent to care and treatment in line with legislation and guidance.

Caring

Good

Updated 21 March 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion and they were given emotional support when needed.

People were supported to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care as far as possible.

People's privacy, dignity and independence were respected and promoted.

Confidential information was kept private.

Responsive

Good

Updated 21 March 2018

The service was responsive.

Although people were not always given information in an accessible manner, in practice they received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.

People were offered opportunities to pursue their hobbies and interests and to take part in a range of social activities.

People’s concerns and complaints were listened and responded to in order to improve the quality of care.

Suitable provision had been made to support people at the end of their life to have a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death.

.

Well-led

Good

Updated 21 March 2018

The service was well led.

There was a registered manager who promoted an open culture in the service.

Suitable steps had been taken to enable the service to meet regulatory requirements. This included the promotion of good team work and enabling members of staff to speak out if they had any concerns.

People who lived in the service, their relatives and members of staff had been consulted about the development of the service.

Suitable arrangements had been made to enable the service to learn, innovate and ensure its sustainability. This included the completion of robust quality checks.

The service worked in partnership with other agencies to promote the delivery of joined-up care.