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

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

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

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others. The registered manager had oversight of the day to day care provided and there was a clear staffing structure within the organisation.

Reasons for our judgement

People who used the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on. A service user survey had been undertaken in June 2013. This survey was undertaken annually and was presented in an accessible format. We saw that no quality issues had been raised on this occasion.

The provider took account of complaints and comments to improve the service. The people we spoke with knew how to raise any concerns or complaints but told us they hadn’t had to do this. One person said, “I am happy with how things are run”. We saw that when one person’s representative had raised concerns about one aspect of their relative’s care this had been dealt with to their satisfaction.

The registered manager told us about the provider’s national service user conference which some people had attended the week before our inspection. A meeting was planned so they could feed back the ideas they had discussed to staff and other service users. We saw evidence that the service had communicated with people’s representatives about the changes to the way support was provided at Oaklands Park. This included family meetings which allowed families the opportunity to comment on those changes.

There was evidence that learning from incidents / investigations took place and appropriate changes were implemented. A serious incident had occurred in 2012 at another of the provider’s supported living services. (Please note that this service was not registered with us at the time of this inspection as the service was not providing a regulated activity). The coroner wrote to us in September 2013 to raise concerns about the failure to manage risks around medication and to provide adequate support and supervision in this case. At this inspection we found that the provider had done considerable work to improve the management of medications at their services through development of their new medications policy. This policy was in its 13th draft and was pending approval by the provider’s Board. The registered manager had been part of the policy development group and had fed back comments from commissioners to inform this process. We saw that the registered manager had implemented changes to people’s care in response to incidents. When doing this they had taken care to manage risks in a way which still allowed people to be independent in the areas they did not need support with.

Decisions about care and treatment were made by the appropriate staff at the appropriate level. The staff we spoke with told us that meetings were held regularly where people’s needs and how best to support them was discussed. Minutes of staff meetings were available. The staff structure within the organisation was clear and staff knew who to raise concerns or issues to and who to talk to if they felt their concern had not been addressed effectively. A staff member said, “This has been the most approachable management team I have ever worked with”. Another told us that they were able to challenge practices when they felt this was needed and that managers were open to new ideas. Staff told us that communication between staff groups and different shifts was good.

All monthly reviews, changes to care plans, risk assessments and medications were sent to the registered manager for review and to make sure that the office copies were up-to-date. MARs charts were also sent to the office once completed and were quality checked by the registered manager. There was an effective audit programme in place to manage staff and care records. This meant that managers had oversight of the day to day care provided by staff and of staff supervision. The registered manager showed us an infection control audit tool which they were assessing for use. While this had not yet been implemented we saw that important elements of infection control practices were already covered when staff were observed as part of their supervision. The provider may find it usef