Archived: Oak Farm

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?

People had care plans in place that identified any risks that could be found when completing care and support tasks. The service had acted on those findings and had systems in place to reduce or remove the risk. This ensured the tasks were carried out safely.

Audits were completed monthly on the homes management of infection control.

Medication procedures were followed and people were supported with their medication by safe medication management.

Application for authorisation under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had not, to date, been required. However updated training on the (MCA) and (DoLS) had recently been attended by managers and was about to be cascaded to staff to ensure they had a clear understanding of when an application should be made.

Is the service effective?

People had detailed care plans that showed how the person and /or their relative were involved with their care needs. We read how decisions were made and how, through professional input the best way to support the person was found.

People were effectively supported with their nutritional needs by the support and advice given by experts, such as dieticians and speech and language therapists. This advice was followed by staff with the results of people’s weight being suitably balanced.

Staff had been given training that ensured they could carry out the work expected. Specialist training to meet complex needs was in place such as tracheostomy training. Skills were obtained to ensure the correct care was provided safely.

Is the service caring?

During this inspection we found Oak Farm had a number of adults with different and complex needs. Each one required an approach from a team of staff that knew how to support that person with their individual needs. Throughout our observations on the day of this inspection we noted that people were spoken with in a respectful manner. People were given time to explain when communication was difficult and the choices they made were respected.

Suitable methods of communication were written in the person’s care plan and staff were seen using these methods to enable as much involvement and interaction as was possible.

One person said, “I have the choice to do what I want when I want. I can go where I like and live the life I want within the restrictions of my situation.”

Staff were observed and heard speaking respectfully when interacting with anyone they were offering assistance to.

Is the service responsive?

We found that the staff team interacted well regardless of the role they were employed to do. For example we observed care staff working with therapists to enable a person to move from one room to another. Multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meetings were held weekly to ensure any needs required could be responded to quickly.

We were also told that training was provided to match the needs of the people who will be using the service in the future.

We had discussions about the stakeholder meetings that occurred every 12 weeks. These assisted in the development and quality of the service provided.

We looked at the last two complaints that had been received and noted that these had been acted upon. Relatives and staff told us the management were very supportive and that they were able to ask questions or discuss concerns at any time. People could be assured that their complaints and concerns would be acted upon.

Is the service well led?

The home had various methods of measuring the quality of the service provided. We saw comprehensive care plans that had been updated monthly. We read records in each file of the outcome of each person’s (MDT) meeting showing ways of moving and improving the care support required. We saw that risk assessments had been reviewed and updated when required. We looked at weight charts and noted that these were checked monthly for any concerns.

People were asked for their views of the service provided and any concerns were addressed. Questionnaires were circulated at various times to gather people’s views on the quality of the service provided.

The home had guidance provided in policies and procedures. We looked at the medication policy that would assist staff in the management of medication.

Four people who lived in the service and two of their relatives told us the majority of the staff team had been in the home a long time. They said the management was good and that they made themselves available and answered questions they might have.

We spoke with three people living at Oak Farm and all of these people expressed their happiness with the service. One person told us “This is the best home I could be in, they [the staff] actually listen to you and I feel that I am cared for”. A second person told us that they were “happy” and when asked, they confirmed that they felt the staff treated them well and met their needs.

However, we were not assured that all of the people living at Oak Farm had their communication needs met.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

We found that appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work and that effective recruitment and selection processes were in place.

Following our inspection in August 2012 the provider sent us a report detailing the action it was going to take to ensure that it made improvements to the running of the service.

During this inspection, undertaken on 03 January 2013, we found that appropriate action had been taken and improvements had been achieved.

For example, where we found concerns in relation to the level of communication people received the provider asked a speech and language therapist to develop communication plans for each person at the service.

Where we found inconsistencies in the way in which people's care records were maintained, the provider had re-developed each plan.

When we found that bathrooms were unhygienic and unclean, we saw that the provider had upgraded these areas to ensure that the people using this service could be cared for in a clean environment.