The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: 27 Islip Road

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

27 Islip Road, Oxford, Oxfordshire, OX2 7SN (01865) 516783

Provided and run by:
Advance Housing and Support Ltd

Important: This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

All Inspections

13 August 2015

During a routine inspection

We inspected this service on 13 August 2015. This was an unannounced inspection. 27 Islip Road is registered to provide accommodation for up to 10 people with a learning disability who require personal care. At the time of the inspection there were eight people living at the service.

At a previous inspection of this service in March 2015 we found medicines were not always managed in a safe way, the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were not always followed, and people's records were not always accurate. In addition we found that staff were not always adequately supported to deliver care to service users safely and to a sufficient standard and the registered person had not made the Care Quality Commission (CQC) aware of some notifiable incidents.

Following the inspection in March 2015, we asked the provider to write to us to say what they would do to make improvements. We also issued the provider and registered manager with a warning notice stating the service must make improvements by 30 May 2015 to ensure people received care that was planned and delivered in a way that met their individual needs and ensured their safety and welfare. We told the provider they could not admit any new people to the service.

We undertook this inspection to check that the provider had followed their action plan and to confirm the service now met legal requirements. We found the provider had taken the actions and made the required improvements.

People told us they were happy living at the service. People were cared for in a kind and respectful way. Staff engaged with people and offered support to promote people’s independence. Staff knew the people they cared for and what was important to them. People's choices and wishes were respected by care staff and recorded in an individual Person Centred Plan. People had been involved in reviewing their care. People had a range of individualised risk assessments in place to help them maintain their independence. Ensuring updated risk assessments were always made available to staff in a timely way was an area that required further improvement.

The health needs of people were being met. Staff had received support from healthcare professionals and worked together with them to ensure people's individual needs were being managed.

Appropriate arrangements were in place to manage people's medicines safely. Medicines were stored and administered safety.

People told us they had access to a range of activities and events according to their wishes. We observed people enjoying activities in the home and the home had a welcoming and relaxed atmosphere. Further improvements had recently been made to the service to ensure people lived in a comfortable and homely environment. People told us they were involved in making decisions regarding the refurbishment of the service.

The provider, registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People’s mental capacity had been reflected in their care records. People told us their wishes had been respected.

A new manager was in post because the registered manager had left the service following our last inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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. The new manager was in the process of applying for registration with the CQC. A deputy manager and some new staff had been recruited and steps were being taken to recruit to other vacancies.

People and staff were complimentary about the new management team and the changes that had taken place within the service. Relatives felt some of the “homely feel” had been lost since the changes had taken place.

People knew how to make a complaint if required. The management team sought feedback from people and their relatives and was striving to further improve the quality of the service.

Action had been taken to ensure staff had received support including, training, regular meetings, one to one and group supervision.

11 March 2015

During a routine inspection

We inspected the service on 11 March 2015. The service is registered to provide accommodation for up to 10 people with a learning disability who require personal care. At the time of the inspection there were eight people living at the service. This was an unannounced inspection.

We previously inspected the service on 3 January 2014. The service was meeting the requirements of the regulations at that time.

Prior to this inspection we had received concerns from the local authority and visiting health professionals about how the risks associated with peoples care and support were managed and how the service was being led.

People were at risk of unsafe care and treatment because their risk assessments and other records relating to their care were not always accurate or up to date. Some risks to people had not been identified. Where risks had been identified guidance was not always provided to care staff to support people safely and effectively. People were not adequately assessed by the service. People and their relatives were not involved in assessments and care planning. The service was not adhering to the key principles of person centred care. Information about some people was not managed in a way that protected their privacy.

People were not always supported with their care in a way that was respectful or promoted their independence. Medicines were not always stored or managed safely.

The home had a registered manager in place. 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. The registered manager demonstrated a personalised approach and a commitment to providing good quality care, but required further support to make changes to bring the service up to the required standard. Systems were not in place to monitor the quality of the service and there was a dependence on external professionals to identify areas where improvements were required.

People, their relatives, and staff recognised that improvements were taking place and attributed this to the work of the registered manager.

People felt safe and their relatives told us they did not have concerns about people’s safety. People were protected from abuse. There were effective systems in place to support people to manage their finances. Staff were knowledgeable about the types of abuse and what action to take if they thought people were at risk. People were supported to maintain relationships and express their sexuality in a respectful way.

People told us they liked living at the home and were treated in a friendly way. People and their relatives were very complimentary about the registered manager and staff. People liked the food and were supported to maintain a healthy diet.

Some improvements had recently been made to the service to ensure people lived in a comfortable and homely environment. However some further improvements were still required.

Staff did not fully understand the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), so the principles of the act were not being followed to ensure people who might lack capacity were being supported to make decisions.

Staff felt supported. However, staff were not supported to improve the quality of care they delivered through training or the supervision and appraisal process. Although staff had recently received training in some areas such as the MCA, risk assessments and care planning we found staff knowledge and practice in these areas required improvements. This meant the training had not been effective in meeting the needs of the people they were supporting.

We found seven breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010, which corresponds to five breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and one breach of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. You can see the action we took and what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report. Following the inspection we shared our findings with the local authority commissioning and safeguarding teams.

3 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We were told that the recently appointed service manager was going to become the registered manager for the service.

We spoke to five people and three members of staff. We reviewed records including four care plans and three staff files.

People were involved in their care plans and made choices concerning their support and activities in the home and in the community. A staff member told us 'We're here to promote their choices.'

One person, when asked what the home was like, told us that 'It's brilliant. I enjoy it.'

Records showed that the premises were maintained regularly. We saw evidence of this including new flooring installed in the home.

Staff had access to appropriate training and supervision.

We saw evidence that the provider carried out spot checks and had set targets. The provider's quality monitoring system had identified a number of actions to be taken, by whom and when.

20 March 2013

During a routine inspection

We were able to talk informally to six people who used the service and three members of staff during a tour of the building. People told us 'that they liked the home' One person had been to her brothers birthday party with a member of staff, which she had enjoyed. One person told us that 'they liked it here because L makes nice meals'. One person told us that 'they didn't like it anymore because staff keep leaving'.

We toured the building which is a large Victorian house adapted to provide residential accommodation. We were told 'that its always being repaired'. On the day of the visit a leak was being mended. Each person had their own room which they were responsible for keeping tidy. Some rooms we looked at were tidier than others. Bedrooms reflected the individuals' personality with personal possessions and mementoes in evidence. Procedures were in place to ensure that people were kept safe and free from harm. Where risk had been identified assessments had taken place to minimise the risk.

We were told that there had been a lot of turnover of staff recently. The manager had been seconded to another project which meant she wasn't spending as much time in the home as she used to. We were told however that a new deputy manager was providing support to the service. A new manager had been appointed and was due to start in April. Recruitment was under way and at present they had three new applicants.