Archived: Oasis House

As part of this inspection we spoke with all the people who used the service, the registered manager and a care worker.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, 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 treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), although no applications had needed to be submitted. Relevant staff had knowledge and understanding to determine when an application should be made, and in how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

The registered manager set the staff rotas, which took people's care needs into account when making decisions about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience required. This helped to ensure that people's needs are always met.

Recruitment practices were safe and thorough. No staff had been subject to disciplinary action. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.

Is the service effective?

There was information around advocacy services available if people needed it, this meant that when required people could access additional support.

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they had been involved in writing their plans of care. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. People said that they had been involved in writing them and they reflected their current needs.

The registered manager confirmed that visitors were able to see people in private and that visiting times were flexible.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented 'The staff really get to know us, I'm really happy'. Another person told us 'I like it here, I get on well with the staff and they treat me well. I'd be a liar if I sad otherwise'.

People who used the service, their relatives or friends involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns had been raised these were addressed.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People completed a range of activities in and outside the service regularly, and people told us that they had activities planned and trips out of the home, which helped to keep them involved with their local community.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. One person said 'I've got no problems, but if I've got something to say, I say it and they listen. Which is how it should be'. We looked at how complaints had been dealt with, and found that the responses had been open, thorough and timely. People can therefore be assured that complaints are investigated and action taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

The service had a quality assurance system, records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.

Staff we spoke with 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. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

Comments received from people who lived in the home included 'Staff never raise their voices I feel completely safe here".

"I've never had to make a complaint, I've never had to, I can talk to (staff members name) whenever I want to. I'd just tell them if I didn't like something and they'd sort it out for me".

'The food is good. Nice presentation too. If it's something we don't like we tell them and we get something else, something we like'.

People were provided with sufficient quantities of food and drink that met their needs. People we spoke with told us they enjoyed the food provided and that there was always a choice food at meal times.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

There was enough equipment to promote the comfort of people who lived at the home. The provider had made sure that the equipment was safe to use and met the needs of people who lived there.

There was a system for dealing with complaints.

People who lived in the home, spoke very highly of the management and care worker and the quality of the support they had provided. They told us they were very happy with the support they had received and that they felt they had been supported safely and consistently. They told us that they were supported in the way they preferred.

One person told us "It's a nice little home, a family home."

Another person told us 'I can do what I want when I want.'

A visitor told us "They are doing an excellent job." and "This is a real home from home, a proper home."

The recruitment practices were safe and the relevant identity and security checks had been completed. The care worker employed had the skills and experience needed to fulfil their role.

The accommodation was safe and had been adapted to meet the needs of the people living there.

Records maintained by the home were legible and complete. They were stored securely and were accessible to people who had a right to see them.