You are here

Archived: Oxclose Lodge Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 1 July 2017

This inspection visit was unannounced and took place on 19 June 2017. At our last inspection visit on 2 April 2015 we asked the provider to make improvements to the audits and supervision of staff. At this inspection, we found improvements had been made. The service was registered to provide accommodation for up to five people who have physical needs and a learning disability. At the time of our inspection five people were using the service.

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.

Oxclose Lodge comprises of a purpose built bungalow. There is a private enclosed garden which people can access from the rear of the bungalow. Within the garden there is a sensory summer house which can be accessed by people with support from staff.

The provider had completed a range of audits and quality checks and had responded to make improvements. Staff had received supervision and support for their role.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and we saw there was a flexible approach to the support they offered. Staff employed at the service had received the appropriate checks to ensure they were suitable to work with people. Medicines were administered safely by staff who were trained and regular audits ensured that any errors were addressed.

People were supported to be safe at the service and staff had received training to enable them to know how to raise any concerns. Risk assessments had been completed to cover all aspects of the environment and to maintain people’s safety when outside the service. Other risk assessments had been completed to support the individual’s independence and provide guidance when using equipment.

Staff had received a range of training to support the needs of people. Additional training was available to increase the staff’s knowledge and support their career development. There was a clear induction for all new staff which involved training and shadowing with experienced staff.

Staff understood what measures to take when people did not have the capacity to make decisions. Assessments had been completed to cover a range of decisions. When required referrals to the local authority had been made when there was an identified risk that someone’s liberty was deprived.

People could choose what food they wished to eat. People were supported with different ways to receive their nutrition and fluids to ensure they remained hydrated. When required specialist advice had been sought. Referrals to other health professional had been made to ensure the people maintained good health and well-being.

The staff had established positive relationships with the people to provide an individual level of care. Relationships with families had been promoted and they felt able to visit anytime. People’s dignity was respected and the staff had developed ways to promote their understanding of dignity.

The care plans provided details about people’s preferences and how they wished their care to be provided. Relationships that mattered had been included in the development of the plans. People’s leisure time was promoted and they had the choice of how to spend their day. There was a complaints policy in place which was available and any concerns had been addressed.

We saw that the previous rating was displayed in the reception of the home as required. The manager understood their responsibility of registration with us and notified us of important events that occurred at the service; this meant we could check appropriate action had been taken.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 1 July 2017

The service was safe

People�s individual risks were identified and managed to keep them safe. Staff were suitably recruited and understood how to protect people from harm and poor care. Medicines were managed to ensure safe administration. There was sufficient staff to support people�s needs, which was flexible and consistent.

Effective

Good

Updated 1 July 2017

The service was effective

Staff had received training which gave them the skills they needed to care for people effectively. People had been supported to make decisions and when they were unable best interest decisions had been made with the relevant people. The provider had considered when people were being unlawfully restricted and had made applications to the local authority. People were given a choice of food and specialist ways to support people with their diets had been implemented. Specialist advice was sought promptly when people needed additional support to maintain their health and well-being.

Caring

Good

Updated 1 July 2017

The service was caring

People and their relatives were happy with the care that was provided. It was delivered in a dignified and respectful way. People were encouraged to make choices and be independent. Relatives and friends were free to visit throughout the day and for those unable to visit there opportunities were made to enable their relationship to be maintained.

Responsive

Good

Updated 1 July 2017

The service was responsive

People received care which met their preferences and staff understood their likes and dislikes. There were opportunities for people to choose how they spent their leisure time. There was a complaints procedure and this was followed when required to address any concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 1 July 2017

The service was welled

There was a positive atmosphere in the home and staff felt well supported. People and relatives were encouraged to share their views about the service. Audits were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided and had been used to drive improvement.