Background to this inspection
Updated
11 November 2020
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.
This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place. As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are conducting a thematic review of infection control and prevention measures in care homes.
This inspection took place on 16 October 2020 and was announced. The service was selected to take part in this thematic review which is seeking to identify examples of good practice in infection prevention and control.
Updated
11 November 2020
Oak Field is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement.
Oak Field does not provide nursing care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service supports up to seven people with learning disabilities. There were six people using the service at the time of our inspection.
When we last visited the home on 22 September 2015 the service was meeting the regulations we looked at and was rated Good overall. At this inspection we found the service remained Good overall.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.
Systems were in place to protect people from abuse and harm. Staff understood the signs people may be being abused and how to respond to this as they received training in safeguarding adults.
Risks relating to people’s care were reduced as the provider identified, assessed and managed risks appropriately. People were supported in relation to behaviours which challenged the service. People’s medicines were managed safely.
The provider checked staff were suitable to work with people as part of their recruitment systems. There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to support people safely and to spend time with people in a meaningful way.
The premises were maintained safely although the provider told us they would review the safety of window restrictors across the service. The premises met people’s support needs and some aids and adaptations were in place to support people in relation to their disabilities. These included a chair lift, hand rails and a sensory room.
The service was clean and suitable food hygiene processes were in place. Infection control procedures were largely suitable although the provider told us they would make some improvements to the way mops were stored and auditing of infection control.
Staff received suitable induction, supervision and annual appraisal. A training programme was in place to help staff understand people’s needs and their role and responsibilities.
People received care in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to this.
People were supported to receive coordinated care when moving into the service and into hospital. The provider assessed people’s needs and reviewed their needs as part of checking people’s needs continued to be met.
People received choice of food and people received food in relation to their ethnic and cultural needs. Meal times were flexible and based on people’s preferences. People received support to maintain their health.
Staff were kind and caring and knew how people liked to receive their care. People had choice and control in relation to their care. Staff were respectful towards people and maintained their dignity and privacy. People were encouraged to be as independent as they wanted to be.
People’s care plans were person-centred and detailed. Care plans reflected people’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs, their personal history, individual preferences, interests and aspirations.
People were provided with activities they were interested in and so spent their time in meaningful ways. People were supported to maintain relationships with people who were important to them.
The complaints process continued to be suitable and the provider investigated and responded to complaints.
The registered manager was well supported by an acting manager and leadership was visible and capable across the service. Staff understood their role and responsibilities. A staff award system was in place to recognise staff.
A quality assurance programme was in place to assess, monitor and improve the service. People, relatives and staff were communicated with openly and their feedback was sought and acted on.