You are here

Oaklands Park Domiciliary Care Service Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 21 October 2013
Date of Publication: 6 November 2013
Inspection Report published 06 November 2013 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 21 October 2013, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff and reviewed information sent to us by commissioners of services.

Our judgement

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Care plans and risk assessments were updated regularly and external professionals were involved when this was indicated.

Reasons for our judgement

People’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We checked care records for four of the 13 people who were in receipt of the regulated activity at the time of the inspection. We found that each person’s needs had been assessed and this assessment had been used to develop their care plan. Our observations and conversations with staff and people who use the service demonstrated that the support described in care plans and risk assessments reflected the support staff provided to people.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people’s safety and welfare. We saw evidence that the service had been working on a performance improvement plan (PIP) with the local authority throughout 2013. This included improvements to risk assessment which were now embedded. Care records showed that risk assessments had been carried out and reviewed regularly. These covered falls, medications and activities that people participated in.

We saw that some care plans detailed each step staff should follow to support people, particularly with their personal care. However, the provider may find it useful to note that other care plans lacked detail. For example, one person had been assessed as having a high falls risk. Their support plan to address this risk said that they were, “supported by staff when accessing the wider community” but no details of what this meant had been documented. This meant that the level of support needed was open to interpretation and hence the support provided by staff may be inconsistent.

People’s care and treatment reflected relevant research and guidance. We saw that referrals to external health professionals had been made when additional support was required to meet people’s individual needs. For example, for service had worked with the community learning disabilities team (CLDT) to produce behavioural support plans when needed to manage challenging behaviours. Similarly when the service was no longer able to meet the needs of one person, this had been raised with commissioners and a suitable placement had been found.

People’s care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that protected them from unlawful discrimination. We saw that people had access to preventative and specialist heath care, including annual health checks and regular dental care. People were supported to access their wider community, to attend college and/or to work either on the Camphill Village farm or in the local village. People’s support plans demonstrated that where possible staff worked with people to increase their independence in all areas of their lives. The two people we spoke with told us that staff supported them well, one said, “They are very good. They listen”.

There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. We saw that staff had undertaken first aid training and first aid equipment was available to staff. We saw that some information relating to evacuation in case of fire was written on boards positioned by the door of the houses we visited. The registered manager told us that fire drills were carried out regularly. However the provider may find it useful to note that personal emergency evacuation plan’s (PEEP) were not available. This meant that the support each person needed to evacuate safely may be unclear to a new/agency staff member. We judged that the potential risk to people was minimal as the registered manager informed us that new/agency staff always worked alongside a regular staff member.