You are here

Oakwood Residential Home Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 23, 24 January 2014
Date of Publication: 12 March 2014
Inspection Report published 12 March 2014 PDF


Inspection carried out on 23, 24 January 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At our last inspection on 11, 16 and 19 September 2013, we found the provider was failing to meet the nine essential standards we inspected. We also checked on the warning notices set from our inspection in June and July 2013 and found the provider had not taken adequate action to meet the notices. Following the inspection we took enforcement action and imposed a condition to prevent the provider from accepting any new admissions to the home.

During this inspection we used a variety of methods to help us understand the experience of people using the service. We spoke with eight people, three family members, three external healthcare professionals and observed care and support being delivered. We also used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

During our SOFI we saw staff interacting positively with people in the lounge. We heard staff using people�s preferred names and speaking with them in a calm and respectful way. Some people told us their needs were met and they were satisfied with the care and support they received. One person said, �They look after me pretty good�. One family member said the care had improved recently and that their relative was �so much better now�. However, two other family members told us they had concerns about the standard of cleanliness at the home and said their relative�s health care needs were not always met.

We looked at 15 care plans and associated records and saw a new format had been developed. However, we found the risks of people falling were not managed effectively and care plans did not contain adequate information about how people�s complex needs would be met. There were inadequate arrangements in place for the provision of meaningful activities or mental stimulation.

We looked at records of safeguarding training which showed all staff had received refresher training. Staff we spoke with knew how to identify and report abuse. However, the service had not complied with a condition attached to an authorisation for deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) in respect of one person. People were not protected from the risk of abuse by other people using the service who posed a risk to them.

The provider had not taken the steps necessary to meet the requirements of the code of practice on the prevention and control of infections. Personal protective equipment, soap and disposable towels were not available in key places, so staff could not follow the home�s procedures.

We looked at 10 bedrooms and found six were not clean. Three bedrooms smelt of urine; three beds were stained with dried urine; and six bedroom carpets were badly stained with dark patches of an unidentified substance. Laundry policies and procedures had not been developed to minimise the risk of cross contamination within the laundry room and staff could not access the hand washing sink.

We looked at a sample of 12 medication administration record (MAR) charts. The arrangements for obtaining medicines were not robust. Appropriate arrangements were not in place to ensure people were able to self-administer inhalers safety. There were inadequate arrangements in place to ensure people received their �as required� medicines safely and consistently.